Integration, Evolution, and Transcendence

Learning the art and honing the skills of differentiation, identification and association increases accuracy of observation. It increases intelligence. It increases ability.  L. Ron Hubbard aptly defined the application of those skills as sanity.

When one observes while exercising differentiation, identification and association one has assumed and assigned identity, differentiated himself from and made associations between himself and those phenomena and things that he observes.  By doing so, one is experiencing duality in the mode of causation.

Continued practice in these skills can reduce complexities and systems to simplicity and create a heightened sense and certainty of oneself and his place and role in the cosmos.  It can bring about an unrepressed, self-determined, well and happy state of being.  Scientology technology, sans cultish policy/group think indoctrination, is well equipped to bring about that state (the means and reasons why are covered in some detail in the book What Is Wrong With Scientology? – along with vital data on how to steer clear of the policy/group think cult indoctrination).

Once attained, one can trade on those skills to bring about higher intelligence and power of observation in others and/or more profit and power to oneself.  Some, though they would be the last to admit it, obtain and exercise a feeling of superiority and a comfortable identity for having accomplished a high degree of competence in the skills of identification, association and differentiation.  If the exercise of one’s skills are of sufficient value by way of their scarcity, more penetrating observation beyond them might seem a threat to the value of those skills of differentiation, identification and association and all that they garner. One can very easily find a contentment level where further observation of higher truths and unexplored realms might be seen to upset the comfort of the help, profit and power zones one is experiencing or operating in.  Some have even bought into the idea that to transcend or move on from that which increased one’s ability to identify, associate and differentiate would be tantamount to eschewing those skills and constitute the most heinous form of treason.  The act of continued observation beyond the constructs provided apparently threatens the very identity the skilled one carved out and created for himself as a master of identification, association and differentiation.

On the other hand, one could also value curiosity, sense of adventure, and thirst for higher truths above comfort and power – and possess the courage to explore them – and one could thus seek to view larger and more complex systems and the interactions between them.  Over time, one might begin to observe entire universes and their interactions.  One might even transcend identity and the differentiation, identification and association that defines it and catch a glimpse of all of existence and the synchronicity with which all elements within it seem to interact.  Contrary to the fears announced by those profiting and comforting by expertise in the skills my personal experience is that further exploration only sharpens those skills.

When one observes the whole of existence with no differentiation, identification and association in mind – simply observes the whole of existence as it is – one does not differentiate, identify or associate himself.  One is not separate and apart from the whole of existence.  One is experiencing nonduality.

If one also studied advancements in science, he might find that the higher reality of nonduality is being validated in the laboratory.  And if he continued to observe, beyond differentiation-association-identification, he might find that the universe can be seen to behave as quantum mechanics is beginning to demonstrate. That is, the behavior of the universe is dependent upon the character of the observer; that there is a synchronicity and interconnectedness across the cosmos that is largely invisible and undetectable to the five traditional human senses which are all bound up in identity, and its dependence for survival upon differentiation and association.  Planet earth’s greatest scientific minds – historically, the most skilled at differentiation, identification and association – tend to say of quantum mechanics, ‘if you think you understand it, then I know that you don’t.’

They might more accurately have stated that ‘if you think you can explain it in words, then you haven’t witnessed it.’  As Lao Tzu noted: The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.  The name that can be named is no the eternal Name.  The unnamable is the eternally real.  Naming is the origin of all particular things.  Free from desire, you realize the mystery.  Caught in desire you see only the manifestations. Einstein called it ‘spooky’ phenomena, as phenomena observed potentially could turn our entire concepts of all of existence, our very identities and the definition of God, upside down.  For decades hence science agreed to steer clear of examining how quantum phenomena might impact or shed light upon the nature of the soul, spirit and consciousness. For the past five decades, however, scientists have increasingly explored consciousness and contemplative philosophers have begun to explore science. And in this meeting of minds more clarity is arising.

The heightened abilities to differentiate, associate and identify are demonstrating with greater accuracy how we can better predict the manner in which the universe responds to stimuli.  The universe can be more causatively manipulated. It can be more thoroughly controlled.  It can be caused to bring about more comfort, profit, and power to the identities exercising identification, association and differentiation on a more causative level.

However, it seems that only when one transcends identity and the need for comfort, wealth, and power and the need to differentiate, identify and associate in order to collect and maintain them, that the higher truths of the universe can be directly experienced and perceived.  Not with the five traditional senses.  Instead, with the sixth sense and beyond – referred to in Scientology as theta perceptics, referred to in Eastern traditions as nondual consciousness or awareness.

It seems that if one can learn to let go of an avid craving and drive for the ultimate, everlasting state of ‘causation’ he or she might get a taste of it.  Ironically, contemplative teachers increasingly refer to such tastes as ‘causal consciousness.’ It might just be an activity that one cannot do, but instead a state one must actually be in order to realize.

In that experience, the universe does not respond to one’s causation. It is not something separate, apart, or even associated with you.  There is no association or differentiation between you and it. It is you and you are it.  It and you simply is.

Is one then a separate, distinct identity or a part of a single infinity?

It would appear that it all depends upon how one is viewing himself and the universe.

Can one have it both ways?


174 responses to “Integration, Evolution, and Transcendence

  1. The only thought that comes to mind is solo auditing and having to audit “God”. “Having it both ways” for me, is reaching into heaven while standing on Earth. And sorting something out there. I was a separate single identity and part of a single infinity at the same time.

  2. I don’t understand this post.
    Maybe it’s over my head.
    Not trying to be critical, just giving input.

    • Tony, when I started reading it, I thought “Oh boy, this is deep intellectual shit I’m gonna need word clearing to understand it.” But I continued reading, noting any word I wasn’t sure of, and it all became clear.

      Then I went and finished my Philly cheesesteak with onions, mushrooms and sweet pepper relish from last night.

      Give it a try! You can be one with your ham sandwich!

    • Sounds like Marty’s been somewhere we haven’t been yet. Sounds nice though🙂

    • I dunno either – but I’ll have a pint of what Marty’s drinking.

      What I do know, fortunately, is how little I know. There was a fascinating docu on BBC 4 the other day that illustrated that the whole “Big Bang” theory is almost certainly bunk. Not only is this universe expanding exponentially, apparently, but it is quite probably only one of an infinite number of universes – something I hadn’t even contemplated before, but that seems to be the current “science”. Ah well, back to the gammon and chips.

      • You are currently on a 4.5 Billion Year old spaceship. A self sufficient organic, complex spaceship. You are orbiting a power source that is a million times larger than your ship. There are 200 billion more power sources , possibly with ships like yours, in your group. There are 40 more groups in your particular neighborhood. Your neighborhood is moving at 2 million miles per hour to an object that is that is 150 million light years away. Welcome to Earth!

      • Valkov, Martin and Max,
        After spending over 30 years in the RCS, and having spent hours upon hours pouring over MU’s and doing demos and thinking of “how it could be this way or that” I decided that I would only for the most part read things that were very easy to understand. It’s funny LRH wrote some of the most astoundingly clear items I have ever set eyes on. Crystal clear.
        He also wrote some of the hardest articles to duplicate.

        As with other philosophers, he had moments of genius and also of mediocrity.

        • Honestly Tony, leave all the word clearing behind.
          I don’t think you need to word clear any of it.
          Read it all the way through and it will blossom floating on the surface of your mind like a blooming lotus.

      • The multiverse theory is I believe an attempt to avoid the implications of the incredible fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe for the existence of life. The fine tuning is so fine that chance is a very poor explanation for it unless…there is a near infinite quantity of universes so that at least one would fall within life permitting range. Apparently there is no evidence for the existence of the multiverse at all, it’s just postulated from the premiss ‘materialism is true so how do we explain this; a way of avoiding theism.

    • Go back to the post right before this and find what it was you didn’t understand. (Laughter!)

      • 🙂
        Route me to ethics…

        • Tony, I hear you… not on the “Route me to ethics” part, but on the wordclearing one.

          When I first read the post I had no good understanding of it. “What does Marty want to say here?” “I don’t get him…. that’s too deep for me”.

          I was also tired and it was late at night.

          Today I sat down got my Merriam Webster open on my iphone and started throwing in there the words….

          garner, constructs and other words….

          I stopped to ponder on things like the “mode of duality”. I tried to grasp the higher ability of differentiation, association and identification.

          And though I can see the differentiation thing, I may need to see the association and identification a bit better, i have to admit.

          And then I came to that part saying that those abilities demonstrate how we CAN better predict the manner in which the physical universe responds to stimuli.

          and that word “CAN” made me feel weird, I didn’t know it was that word and it happens to me sometimes to be reading with more clarity and width than some other times.

          So I sat down and thought on that word and what it meant in the sentence. I was trying to get a concept, a clear view of the meaning of that whole sentence.

          Study tech has taught me one thing: Get A concept. If you can’t get a concept then that’s it, you are not following. What is it? What is this thing described here? How is it in the physical universe? what does it mean in life? What the hell is that “how we CAN better predict”….

          Well, I got a headache but as I tried clearing up some definitions also the concept was coming and going. I was trying to get a good hold of this thing. And I did.

          If after one sentence what you read is not REAL to you then there is some word there. Go back to it and find it. Standard wordclearing Tech.

          it’s true Marty must have been somewhere else. It’s a beautiful text. But it’s in symbols that are put in a way that need to be cleared up and the concepts conveyed by those symbols must be made Your’s. At least to grasp.

          But what I find out lately is how MU’s relate to Lack of Mass and Too steep a Gradient. They can be interwoven, too.

          Like I was reading, I remember, the phrase “A reader of books”. and I was in the beginning of my wordclearing adventure so I was looking for some mass behind the words. Ok, I know what is a reader, I can picture him and Demo him. I know what is a book, too. But I couldn’t picture the word OF, a reader OF books. What the hell is this? I was asking myself for many hours? How do I Demo “of”? I couldn’t get it. Until it dawned on me that “of” was just conveying the idea of ACTION. a reader of books, READS books…. A whole mass left off my head when I had this cognition. It’s that crazy Earth Grammar and those small words that make us mostly go bananas. We haven’t fully decoded them in nice thetanlike Concepts. There is so much mass on those and other words.

          So then I was so happy. A lover of flowers, loves flowers. I had it decodified. I was clear on it. The same way I tried to be clear on anything I read and it’s true LRH was many times so easy to get. Just reading him would add more and more to my ability to understand things.

          So, don’t give up on that tech. and go back to the point where you were doing good and find that word. It’s true Marty is writing some times in a very difficult and juicy way one has to decodify those concepts behind those words he is using. Study tech did this to me: to be able to sit down pick up my misunderstoods, get them defined and also make them real to me… what is this? how is it in the physical universe or what kind of concept does it represent. And then I could move a little bit better.

          • Hi Theo,
            You said: “If after one sentence what you read is not REAL to you then there is some word there. Go back to it and find it. Standard wordclearing Tech.”
            This isn’t real to me.

            It is possible that someone could speak jibberish and clearing all the words in the world wouldn’t help. That is why I like “plain speak”. I think some of the most esoteric ideas can be explained very simply. Not that they have to, but they can.

            • Hi Tony, I agree with you and this is why I like reading LRH. I am reading Child DIANETICS and it is so helpful to me.

              Marty is a son of a gun, hahaha, sometimes!! He writes in such ways, using words and concepts that are beyond plain but still we all admire his talent and eloquence in expressing higher thoughts.

              I wish COB could write and speak the way Marty does. COB is so wooden.

              However my advice still goes. Clear up few words each day. And get down to the small words of grammar.

              I think the demise of Scientology lies in that one thing: inability to decode a concept resulting in Uncertainty about one’s understanding, resulting into need for other Sources, resulting in the High Priests who can interpret for us all those high, divine scriptures.

              The road to freedom contains lots of word clearing.

              • I’m not against clearing words. I think it’s helpful for sure.

              • Theo… l sure admire your hard won wisdom.

                • Thank you GSM, yesterday I was with my gf who is not a Scientologist, never been in the church. However she is reaching a lot for Scientology and the writings of Ron. So she was reading the second dynamic book and one word there didn’t jive…. in the sentence “you can’t make space WITH eating”, “you can make space WITH looking”.

                  As she mentioned it again to me after having read that some months ago, I thought I never helped her to clear it up.

                  Those SMALL WORDS are the KEY TO UNDERSTANDING, it’s not the big words, hahahaha. So I gave her the definition “through the means of, using” and she little by little could understand it.

                  I was amazed to see that in the beginning it was difficult for her to think WITH that definition and she was mostly stuck on the one definition she knew… I am WITH Theo now and we are having a beer.

                  So as I was asking for some examples and sentences little by little she got better, but I could feel the resistance from the mind. With some gradient and easy examples she could start differentiating.

                  Now she could grasp the whole sentence. It’s the little words that make it impossible for one to get the full benefits of studying and I am sure little work has been done on that. Those words we need to learn them down cold and the grammar then which is another difficult part of language must be simplified. Differentiation and understanding depend upon those little devils as the carry a lot of “juice” and they can open up a whole new area in one’s universe.

                  • I just want to add that if those SMALL WORDS are not cleared up, meaning one has a CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANING of them, understanding is very shallow. Getting some mass on them and seeing their different applications and definitions leads one to a whole realm of Understanding. A lot of significance goes away and masses, too on clearing up those SMALL WORDS.

    • Tony,
      You might want to check out a book titled ‘The Field’ by Lynn McTaggert. She discusses many aspects of what exists in the space where there isn’t anything.

      It’s kind of like trying to look at a star in the night sky. You can ‘see’ it better if you don’t look directly at it. But we are really talking about perceptions rather than human eyesight. Just my take on it.

    • TD, agree. Don’t get it.

      • The post Marty made could be broken down into sections with a checksheet and delivered as a course for sure. And called the “View Orientation Course”. I just found out on this thread that Marty now has an academy. Maybe he always did and I just didn’t know, but that is fresh for me. He could arrange some of his own checksheets and deliver very specific courses to bring someone to understanding on various concepts very easily. But one way you could understand this Tony, is to approach it from the opposite angle. Say someone handed you this statement right now and told you to build a course around it. Given a problem and a challenge, you would work it out! It might go something like this, you would look at the first paragraph and ask yourself, “How would this start the course?” Given the charge to bring someone else to understanding, given that duty, you would tackle it.

        Section 1.

        Clear the following words by definitions available in all cultures and use them in sentences until you have mastered their use.

        Learning ____________

        Art ____________

        Differentiation ___________

        Identification ____________

        Association ____________

        Observation ____________

        Intelligence ___________

        Ability ____________

        Sanity ____________

        Section 2.

        Read the following paragraph:

        Learning the art and honing the skills of differentiation, identification and association increases accuracy of observation. It increases intelligence. It increases ability. L. Ron Hubbard aptly defined the application of those skills as sanity.

        Write it backwards in your own words to mean the same thing.

        Example: Sanity, can be evidenced through the application of the skills talents or abilities we are about to describe, per life illustrations and observations of L. Ron Hubbard.

        Now, if you can’t say it backwards to come out and mean the same thing, something doesn’t add up. Just like a math equation! Yes, sentences putting forth ideas are supposed to add up just like math!

        If it doesn’t add up reading it one way, turn it around and read it backwards and see if you can understand it said a different way!

        It is the same thing with all knowledge, if it comes out with the same product no matter how you turn it around, it adds up.

        When you do it with the tech, you get the same amazing results.

        For instance, let’s say an auditing command you have been told to run is, Who or what would oppose ____________? And then you go on and run that and the sub commands running with that.

        You can turn that around and run it backwards and find an equal amount of charge!

        If you have charge on Who or What would oppose injustice? You will find an opposite force holding that place just as charged. “Who or what would not oppose injustice”? Will be just as heavily charged.

        I didn’t figure this out for myself until I ran L12. I do not think it is written anywhere. But the processes should be run from both opposing angles to handle all of the charge. So, don’t take this as the “gospel” as I have not read anything about it by L.R.H.. I have just found it to be true for me. And datumn should be able to be explored forwards and backwards and come out to have the same answer just like a math sentence works. You can even start by reading the post backwards and going up to the top and see if it makes sense to you if you read it from the final conclusion to the top. You can separate the sentences, or paragraphs, come to answer about each one and then put them all together to see if it all adds up to say the same thing. Words are just combinations of symbols. Numbers are symbols. They all are combined to convey a meaning. You can work them all like puzzles until you get a fitting together of it. The longer it takes to figure something out the more talented you get at it. And finally, you arrive at cause over symbols!

        If this does not make sense, I am “fucking with your head”.

        If it makes perfect sense, I am brilliant!

        Even I am a cur, or a light, in someone else’s eyes depending on how these symbols fall about the universe!

        How symbolic!

      • And no, am do mean to “alter is” as a practice. I mean, if you can get some part of the idea that is real, viewing from your angle, and you can say that in your own words in a rhythmic way that finds you in a harmony, you can take another part of it and do the same thing. It is like learning to dance to a different kind of music because ideas put across a distance are musical. There is a certain rhythm in everyone’s voice, whether put in writing or not. I can recognize a person’s voice even when they post another name. Actually. many people can do this, It is the rhythm and use of the words. If you can’t dance to one form of music you can change that into a rhythm you do find harmony with. If the words do not sound musical to you, and are not flowing like a harmony, take each sentence and word it until you and the other person are saying the same thing, so there is an understanding, through whatever harmony you can find. We are all connected through a harmony. If you find the alignment you can understand anybody given that you have the same understanding of the language. But there are things senior to language also. If you tap into that you can travel the world never speaking any language and get by anywhere. Through mutual want and need that transcends language. There are wants and needs greater than language. Show someone with your hands you seem to be eating nothing that is there. They will point you to the nearest food place.🙂

        • A simple example of running process’ in the opposite direction I think everyone here could understand:

          On grade zero I had this item.

          The item was taken up and the command was something like, “If you could say anything to _________ (item), What would you say?

          O.K. So I went “blah blah You M.Fing blah blah.”

          But when I though about in the opposite direction, as in “If ________(item) could say something to me, what would they say?”

          I line charged! They would be saying pretty much the same thing back to me! And even more!

          I KNEW.

          But in the process I was never asked to take their view into consideration!

          When you go up the bridge like this it is all about YOU. Even the sec checks.

          But that is only part of it!

          It is beneficial on some level but I think when you look at it from both angles you come out with a more wholesome understanding. And instead of withdrawing from the world, as in it’s all about YOU, you expand into a better pan determinism. And everyone gets included in on the gains. Everyone becomes a part of the process. And instead of shriveling up into a cult, you expand out into the nation.

          And this ties out into the question Marty poses above:

          “Is one then a separate, distinct identity or a part of a single infinity?”

          • And if you are only running what YOU would say to another if you only could, you are leaning are DIFFERENCES. If you run it backwards you then go to look at SIMILARITIES. And you view it more completely.

            If you do not understand something yet you know the words, you aer leaning only on differences. If you have a way to rephrase it bit by bit in a way you can say the same thing, you are then flowing back into similarities. The identities separate as well. You understand if you can say it your way. That has to pull you out of association. And sometimes the only way to understand is with DISassociation. And creating a new association.

            • This is a perfect example of taking something that does not “relate” to you at all, and creating it into a rhythmic pattern that fits you, and even harmonizes with something you can think with. Jamie Fox singing the Brady Bunch song? For real? Oh yeah……..

              • Creation Of Human Abilities page 34-35
                “40 Any problem, to be a problem, must contain a lie. If it were truth it would unmock.
                An “unsolvable problem”would have the greatest persistence. It would have the greatest number of altered facts.
                To make a problem one must introduce Alter-isness.”
                48 Life is a game wherein Theta as the Static solves the problems of Theta as MEST.
                49 To solve any problem it is only necessary to become theta the solver rather than theta the problem.
                50 Theta as MEST must contain considerations which are lies.”

    • Hi Tony,

      It wouldn’t by chance have to do with the fact that Quantum physics is mixed into the pot would it?

      To all:

      “Planet earth’s greatest scientific minds – historically, the most skilled at differentiation, identification and association – tend to say of quantum mechanics, ‘if you think you understand it, then I know that you don’t.”

      Hmmm … I was hesitant to touch this thread.

      If there is one thing that I can attest to about applying SC tech is that when you use it you actually move up on that particular mystery-to-know scale. Scientist instead tend to end up on a rather different scale. Mystery-to-no that is. (pun intended) No offense to all the scientists out there and please don’t take this as yet another “oh they are just wogs” type of origination, but I firmly believe that if Einstein would have gone up the bridge at least to OT III then he would have finished his Unification theory just fine which he was last working on reportedly until he parted from this game.

      People can and have done amazing stuff with or without SC. So clearly SC is not the only way. However SC is the most workable way known to humanity for ridding yourself of illusions, negative influence, false theories and such. On the OT levels it became evident to me that when the illusion and false information is removed from an area then the moment all necessary false information is cleared up understanding sets in near immediately. Just think of word clearing. Once all necessary words are cleared understanding takes place. This is proven beyond doubt in SC tech over and over. The same principle applies to all knowledge no matter how complex it may seem. The moment all necessary information is cleared up understanding is inevitable.

      Now here we are in this universe and so many of us have tried to hack this puzzle of how these particles (atoms) work but success is only marginal and partial at best.
      (If any of you have bought into the illusion that scientists have it figured out then let me know and I’ll be glad to shatter that illusion into smithereens)
      My reality on this is that we seem to think that we have missing information since the universe didn’t come with a shop manual or even a booklet.
      It seems that this puzzle is quite challenging therefore. It would be safe to agree on the fact that it is an unforgiving field where mistakes and false information will derail the scientist for sure. Not one piece of clue can be misinterpreted on this particular path to truth because it is one of the most unforgiving we know of.
      Then we have sayings like “exception only strengthens the rule” still at large. IMO the mentality of the scientific arena is poisoned with more than enough false information and views to derail any scientist from the path to truth. The get derailed and end up exactly as far from the truth as many false info they work with.

      I think It is impossible to grow up on this planet without a single false information fragment. So the solution is obvious: scientists need a method for ridding themselves of false info.
      Good news: there is already a technology to do just that! SC! Why reinvent the wheel? It works!
      Bad news: the more hard core a scientist is the more likely they look at us as quacks. (correct me if I am wrong) (I am a scientist and I was looking at SC people as quacks also until I’ve read book one so I should know)

      Given all the above I would strongly advise everyone to look at quantum physics as objectively as one can muster. Do not let the illusion get you that they know it all no matter who says it.

      IMO: If a theory can’t be understood by humans then it is the incorrect theory for humans. Also I go by the following mentality which I recommend to all for consideration:
      “exception immediately breaks the rule permanently” therefore you have to go back to formula and rethink all the elements until you find the false/unknown that causes the theory to be incomplete.

      I would also like to point out that contrary to what many mainstream scientists promote Einstein wasn’t all that happy with quantum theory. Just ask brother Google. Einstein’s also famous but less promoted saying “God doesn’t play dice with the world” is a good search phrase to start with.

      The bottom line is that the same “think for yourself” applies to science as well, and if any theory makes you feel like your brain noodles are getting twisted or hemorrhaging then no matter how much the theory is pushed by “science-gods” you should keep an open mind. The whole notion that it is not even possible to truly understand the theory is ridiculous and very convenient for those claiming to be the big wig in the arena to dismiss those who don’t get it and put them down.

      Another not well known fact nowadays is that the so called spooky action
      at a distance is take way off from what Einstein’s later ideas were on the subject. He was at first puzzled by it but then quickly recovered and stated that he thinks that the entanglement is due to preexisting parallel conditions which are shared by the so called “entangled particles”. His idea was that upon arrival at the target these particles behave the same way due to some parallel property which they retain regardless of the distance. I am not quoting exact words here but trust me he wasn’t on the same page as the current derailed stuff is. If you need exceptions which in my opinion break the rule then quantum physics will keep you satisfied for ages to come with exceptions.

      OK this is turning into a book again, so I am going to stop unless I see some interest on this.

      • This is no defense of Science – I agree with much of what you noted. But, I sincerely suggest you apply this standard also to Scientology: ‘Do not let the illusion get you that they know it all no matter who says it.’

      • Good point that science has NOT figured this out! However, they do know what they don’t know and they do know what they cannot logically explain in terms of already established theories of time-space. And so we get quotations like these:

        Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it. –Niels Bohr

        I think that I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. –Richard Feynman

        I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it. –Erwin Schrödinger (LOL!)

        The quotes above epitomize the dilemma of quantum physics! Current observations challenge ESTABLISHED THEORIES that are congruent and consistent with inconsistencies. i.e. challenges existing and accepted mathematical logic and proofs.

        Taking a stab at a simple (and inherently flawed explanation) of this phenomenon: Particles that are split in two somehow “know” or “duplicate” each other’s positions at all times if the particle’s position was determined (measured) before the split. What this means is that they are not “communicating” across space-time, but in some kind of non-local, instantaneous space-time that exceeds the established limits of the speed of light. Even now, scientists are working on developing possible explanations that can stand up to testing and hopefully be consistent with what is already established. Bohm’s explanation is considered to be the “best” so far, mainly because no one has found a flaw in it YET. But, it hasn’t been accepted either.

        Science suffers from the same problems as any other discipline. There is WHAT IS (actually,) and then there is the EXPLANATION of what is. Explanations quickly devolve into simplified and pithy “laws” which are not “laws” at all but “folk sayings” that become fixed in people’s minds as “absolute” truth. They sound learned, they are easy to convey, but they really are grossly inaccurate! Fortunately, they are not what is used to build spaceships or there’d be lots of dead astronauts!

        Science has developed a path of tracking and establishing predictable outcomes for many phenomena and this allows us to make laptops that function consistently. But for every “hit” there are a gazillion misses!

        In reality, this is painstaking work that simply establishes predictable answers to “HOW DOES IT APPARENTLY WORK” but not why it works or what it really is. Those last two parameters are simply ignored as not critical to “how does it apparently work” and what can we confidently predict for outcomes.

        As an example, science cannot tell you WHAT electricity really, really is, but it has working models that allow its behavior and effects under controlled circumstances to be predicted enough to turn the lights on and off with a switch. Science also cannot tell you WHY electricity works the way it does, only that it works a certain way for predictable results and beyond that is the realm of speculation.

        Very often what is thought of as science is really a bright idea from technological designers of how to employ a principle in an innovative way using new materials, processes and developments i.e. try it and see if it works! OOPs! It doesn’t work. It gives inconsistent outcomes! Try it a different way! What if? This simply uses a big feedback loop that relies on previous development. (this is essentially heuristics)

        It has helped me to understand that what seems to be all sewn up and packaged into “the laws of the universe” are really only theoretical explanations that have stood the test of time under controlled circumstances. And these are taught as “truth” and “reality” and “that’s how it is” and from there pass into the realm of blind faith.

        Sound familiar?

        • Thanks for the nice post, we are very very similar to how I see it.

          There is this phenomena which I have observed in software and hardware engineering that if you move on passed a false information fragment which you consider to be correct you can get so derailed and that it is spooky. From a simple overlook/misunderstood/typo and such that you take for granted you can end up being all over the place questioning/changing things everywhere until by accident you finally discover the real source of your troubles. But before you discover the real source things can get real complex looking and ugly in impossible to comprehend.

          Over the past roughly two decades I’ve managed to learn to recognize this chaotic state which can be caused by the simplest and most ridiculous mistakes. Then I had to learn to manage it as best as I can so I’ve learned to immediately start looking for errors in the fundamentals whenever it seems like everything is going to hell all in a sudden.

          The current theories which attempt to explain the particles give me the same exact feeling. They are all over the place and things seem so complex that it is declared incomprehensible. It think that what is really going on is that we are missing one or more (not more than a handful) crucial clues because we have false information connected to them in the field of science. Once these are spotted and corrected everything will fall into place and the theory will become so understandable that you can probably fit it in a very small booklet.

          I had this suspicion way before SC but not that I am one the OT levels this turned into certainty.

          I can now smell false information from a mile away thanks to the tech and science has all the characteristics of missing/false information having been accepted as known. This I am certain of. Unfortunately not many scientists are willing to say: “OK let’s forget everything we know to be a fact and start from scratch” What they are missing is going to turn out to be something so elemental that the person who makes the discovery(ies) will literally fall off their chair when they spot it. Then and only then it will all fall into place and make sense. I’ve seen this phenomena so many times. The common illusion and think is that we have to smarten up because perhaps this is so complex that it is beyond human comprehension. I know this feeling/think and I am not willing to go there again. I wish others would part from it also. The final unification theory will be ridiculously simple. No extra dimensions, not hard math. Just plain and simple. I can almost taste it.

      • “SC is the most workable way known to humanity for ridding yourself of illusions, negative influence, false theories and such.”

        First Rule, this is such a matter of fact statement. How do you know this to be true?

        • Based on what I have examined nothing else comes close. But if you didn’t know anything about SC even then you could just judge it by the tremendous interest it generated. The fact that it has been derailed of course is taking away from the initial momentum, but the current state of SC should not be what it’s workability is judged by.

          Of course needless to say that what I said is merely my opinion and as such should be treated accordingly. Perhaps I should have put “IMO” there but you get the idea.

          At any rate it is a vast and thorough body of knowledge which is very workable in my my opinion. How workable? Exactly as workable as the individuals applying it do so with their most honest and sincere devotion.
          This will be true to any other tech. Dishonest people with hidden agendas can make it into any technology and degrade it. This is a human thing IMO not even an SC phenomena.

          Another reason why I know it to be true is because SC tech is on that has its operating principals routed very solidly in very elemental truths that I have observed to be universal. In the right hands with dedication it works wonders. In the wrong hands no so much. Just like a gun. I’ve watched people struggle with it but every such instance was due to abuse of the tech and/or the presence of hidden agendas and dishonest activity. When such negatives are not present it works just fine. It is very important not to confuse the tech with the user. The tech is the knowledge base the user is the PC. Just like a person can use a gun for strictly self defense and another can chose to rob a bank with it, SC can also be misused.

          If you have doubts about SC (which I would think you may judging from your question) then I would recommend doing whatever you can to eliminate the negative human factors and see the tech for what it is. This can take some looking and practice and a whole bunch of patience.

          SC is by far not the first thing us humans fucked up. It’s just a very live and recent one for us here in the now. We have a history of making crap out of usable things. It’s a human condition thing. That is the overall condition of humanity is not as good as we would like it to be, Therefore no matter how wonderful of a thing one invents if it represents power then those in the dishonest band will be attracted to it and do whatever they can to make it theirs and use it the best way they know which is driven by selfish urges. I don’t even see as the struggle of SC vs “the wold” but instead a certain group of humanity struggling for the enlightenment of all mankind. That is clearly not a task to be underestimated. Anyways I don’t want to turn this into a book but I could go on and on. The bottom line is that I’m not into blaming the tech, DM, DM’s followers or anything like that. I’m way passed blame. I am only interested in solutions now which will only be brought about by mass enlightenment.

          • Crashing Upwards

            First Rule. I think your heart is in the right place. But your insistance about Scientology being the ne plus ultra of spiritual or self-improvement tech is belied by the fact that after 60 years there are probably 100 times the amount of folks who have left its use behind than have stayed with it. You tend to blame it all on the practitioner. Never the “tech”. And Organizationally, the mess is anything but an endorsement.
            I think your on solid ground saying its a very useful and workable tech for many things and lots of folks swear by it. Your professed desire for “mass enlightenment” is unlikley to involve scientology as a positive force at this point. The only mass enlightenment that has happened is the public being awakened to the abuses within the organization and the ridicule that the upper levels material has received.
            I think those who are proponeents of the tech and want to make a difference need to do so locally and deliver something, whether its the L’s or a comm course. One cannot spike the town water with enlightenment. The planet will be “cleared” or made more sane and safe one person at a time. The true believers need to roll up their sleeves and get busy. Talk is cheap.

            • Since I will stay anonymous here I will not get into the details as to how I am going to in the future and have in the past been working towards helping others. Let’s just say I have, take it or leave it. But trust me I am “putting my money where my mouth is”.

              Why I don’t blame the tech: at its core the tech to me is information written in books and nothing more. Books are pretty harmless. They don’t betray, steal or even move. They just are. People actually have to read them and get the idea to do something from books. They have to do that with the best intentions otherwise the end results will be anything but ideal. Blame is actually not a word I would use for what I have in mind these days. I have a recognition of condition. The human condition in particular is the root cause of our problems. I don’t participate in this “corporate SC this or that game”. Blaming corporate SC is one big A=A and is addressing a faceless entity. (DM is not the face, just one of the faces) I find the finger pointing actually comic now (I must be blowing charge on it). We ‘humans’ are as a whole in a bad enough condition that we don’t think for ourselves. This is a fact. This is the problem. (strictly statistically speaking of course, this is not true for every single individual, but true for the wast majority). Some of us wish to see us climb out of this slum and hence the tech from LRH. Does it have flaws? Maybe, but more at policy and org operational levels than at its core. Given that I have not been to corporate SC I am very focused on the tech and have enjoyed my freedom to ignore BS to its fullest.

              Humanity is in bad enough of a condition that given even the best tools they will not be able to use them. It’s like you give them a sonic toothbrush and a good percent will start brushing without turning it on and complain about the bulky handle. Or the trouble of having to charge it. This is not about to change in one generation no matter what. LRH’s goal was to make as fast and wide reaching change as possible. This in turn caused him to lower the standards and keep watering things down, and get into lengthy explanations as people were not really getting things. This in turn allowed the crazy particles to enter more and more and eventually cause the fall of SC. I am all for a different approach. Long term gradual improvement comes to mind which will bring about stability whenever. 5-10 or who knows how many generations from now. I don’t even think this whole let’s clear the planet idea is even remotely possible. But to work on such one has to be totally selfless to work on hinting such long term seeds.

              I like to talk because it allows me a great deal of enlightenment to do so.

              I don’t think talk is cheap. Acting without certainty is what I would be more cautious of. “We” have done that already. Roll up the sleeve and get right at it. Now we are in the learning cycle. What others have done before us did not work out! What are we going to do differently than the one’s before us to make it work this time? Just simply repeating what was already attempted before, is sheer stupidity. And don’t get me started on the “we are going to be more friendly this time and more granting beingness” because that is bull.
              The natural cycle of logic is to predict. When the prediction fails one needs to spot the error and correct it before another attempt is made.
              My interest in reading/posting is mostly to see what and how is planned by others in an attempt to correct the course of actions and learn from the past. Marty is obviously into that so I like to read/post he attracts like minded people.

              At any rate I fail to see how the tech is the blame.

          • First Rule, my question was meant to be rhetorical but I appreciate that you didn’t take it that way and took time to give it your attention and interest.

            Currently, you and I are not on the same page First Rule. However, I have previously been on the very page you are on now. In fact, I was on that page for so long I practically set up a homestead.🙂 That noted, I have no desire or need to attempt to move you to a different page. But, I do have a suggestion for you.

            You wrote: “Of course needless to say that what I said is merely my opinion and as such should be treated accordingly. Perhaps I should have put “IMO” there but you get the idea.” Yes, I do get the idea but IMO, the use of the “IMO”, or something to that effect, is good habit to get into…especially when discussing spiritual beliefs and modalities. For example, you might say something like, “ Based upon my experience, SC is the most workable way that I known of for ridding yourself of illusions, negative influence, false theories and such.” It has been my experience First Rule that, again, especially when discussing/sharing one’s spiritual beliefs and practices with others, that it is wise to stay away from using words that exclude. Words like, ‘best’, ‘only’, ‘most’, etc., exclude and open the door to misinterpretation, invalidation, judgmentalism and conflict.

            It seems that people typically consider whatever spiritual belief or disbelief or practice that they believe in is the ‘best’, the ‘only’ and the ‘most.’ Not just for their self, but for everyone. IMO, we could use a lot more IMOs in spiritual discussions. Btw, I don’t think using an IMO serves to diminishes one’s own certainty about their belief. but it does leave room for other beliefs and the beliefs of others.

            One more thing…a little anecdote. Years ago I attended a workshop given by Peter Gilham. Part of his workshop addressed postulates and how to make postulates. He said something that stuck with me. He suggested not postulating to be ‘The Best’ but instead, postulate to be one of “The Best’. Leave some room for others to be ‘The Best’ too.

            • Some words on ‘IMO’. My view is that it is good to remind people from time to time that what one writes is only their opinion, but then again that in itself is a rhetorical activity. I mean anything one says is their opinion and nothing else. Until verified to be true by the receiver it is nothing more than an opinion. It is statements based on one’s subjective reality whether explicitly stated or not.

              So why do we do it really? I mean state ‘IMO’? It is really a disguise. It’s like saying “I think blah blah blah”, “but you don’t have to think blah blah blah” (then think to self: even though I am convinced beyond a doubt).

              One of the most crucial building blocks of SC ‘IMO’🙂 is that LRH discovered that we suffer from chronic inability to confront and accept direct thoughts. Now look how much more violating it is going to be when I say it like this: “I am convinced that one of the most crucial building blocks of SC is …..”

              You see my subjective state and understanding on the matter does not change with how I phrase it. I am convinced. Period. But if I want others to consider looking at the truth I have to leave the door of illusion open to them and present it in a way that they can feel like they made a discovery when they verify it to be true. Don’t get me wrong I am no exception. (see another reference which is true of course but must be stated to diffuse resistance on the receiving end)
              The rule of thumb is to find the tone level and parallel the listeners mind as much as possible if you want the message to get through, trust me I know that but we are on a forum after all. I’m not writing tech reference here am I?

              To make SC work LRH had to get into all sorts of indirect ways to help people, because us humans as a whole are in such a bad condition that we can’t even take someone else’s origination/opinion at point blank range. (of course if I wanted to be more specific I would have to add “most of the time” to the end of the sentence, but c’mon!) Now why can’t we do that? Because we know we can’t trust one another! If we did then others saying things to us or about us wouldn’t cause such a frikin’ resistance in us. This is a direct indicator of the bad condition we are in. We call such originations evals, and hubbard had to make it a no-no in tech to do that. Us humans just can’t handle that kind of force. Why don’t we trust each other? Because we know that we are not in a good condition which means it is not guaranteed that the others opinion is true. Even if it is true we can’t handle it.

              Now why do I say this? Because you seemed to elevate yourself above me by saying you have been where I am for so long that you practically set up a homestead. Fine. You have passed my state I get it. Based on what you are saying I am new to this plateau and only pitched a tent. If I want to read between the lines then I must have yet to build a home there and perhaps a greenhouse and such before I can move on. Then you go on to recommending not to use words like best, only and most which is correct and I agree with you. But only to a certain degree. English as a language is not a very painfully descriptive one. There is much left to the receiver to figure as this language is heavy on implied content. We say a lot of things which do not make perfect sense when you take it literally. The implied meaning customs and habits fill out the rest. People say ‘absolute’ statements all the time and the listeners get it that it is not an absolute statement. You see kids playing with taking everything literally at a certain age, only to get other kids to call them smart-ass. Should I strive to put things more precisely? Of course and trust me I do. English isn’t even my native tongue. But just how hung up are we going to get on words? I mean yes, if you want to doctor up the language to be up to par with the all SC theories then we should probably do away with absolute words entirely, right? Best, only most … so very absolute.

              Still I stand by my word. SC is the BEST I know of. And I am aware of some other methods. But for instance all meditation type methods I have looked at suffer from the same issues. They focus too much on theory and have the tendency to cause the person to turn inward. SC is the ‘only’ one I know of which actually helps you be more active in life as opposed to turn away from it, or exteriorize away from it, or understand it for 10000ft elevation.
              Sitting and meditating for decades and mauling over the words of previous enlightened teachers until one finds the answers on their own does not work out for many statistically speaking. In contrast Simple Objective and TR processes work on just about any willing body.
              I could go on an on and compare SC and write books on this but there is no point because believe it or not I am not an SC pusher. It works for me and I know others that it works for also. I also know many who say it works for them but they are lying.

              I simply stated what I think. Is that really so violating that I have to put IMO after it? I mean are we adults here or what?

              Now let me ask you something:
              I am glad for you that you have moved passed this page I am on. I truly am. But your writing leaves me with a question:

              You ask a question like this:
              “First Rule, this is such a matter of fact statement. How do you know this to be true?”

              Which has no hint in it what so ever ‘IMO’ to indicate anything other than an open straight and direct question.Then I write a lengthy response which eventually you thank me for but you also have to put me down by indicating that I have over explained on a rhetorical question and subject you have moved way passed.

              Hmmmm …

              If I didn’t know better, I mean if I was an outsider looking at this communication cycle I would have to wonder about your intentions.
              (Is that an indirect enough suggestion for you to indicate that I think you are hostile towards me or should I be more covert?)

              Oh and please let’s not waste each others time with “oh that’s not what I meant”. Also no apologies are needed. I have recently passed the point where such indirect attempts would not affect me any more.

              Don’t confuse me with those who are stuck in SC. I will do OT VIII soon and be done with this thing. I may train on the side and do some auditing most likely as a hobby but I am not stuck in this game of SC’dom. I see it as a tool and still say to others use it or lose it. If it did not give you all that you hoped for and more then scrat! Be big enough to allow others to gain from it and don’t try to bring the whole house down to justify your failure.

              At the end of the day I think that those who attack(/natter about) the tech do so because they don’t get it. To me such originations are nothing but a self portrait of the individual’s state. Like a huge banner saying: “I am such a selfish looser, that I can even let others have wins”

              Still I’m open to check out anything that you think might come close to SC. But be sure you can handle the truth. That is my version of truth of course😉

              I don’t tip-toe around with this stuff. Many practices give you partial results or the illusion of enlightenment. People’s minds are very capable and I have seen people who believed they were enlightened, but it was nothing more then the state of being enlightened being mocked up in their mind and reinforced to where they were floating in glee. If you want to compare apples to apples SC should only be compared to similar systems. Which means comparison to all religions are out. Why because I do not consider SC a religion just because LRH decided not to pay taxes. It is a technology targeted at elevating life as a doingness. The only thing I really can compare it to is Buddhism and its variant(s). Most religions do not work well because they are not indirect enough for humans to actually accept it.

              So let’s stay factual. You asked a question. I answered. Don’t try to make me look stupid. It’s not going to work on me.
              If you are interested in the topic then bring it! Otherwise don’t ask questions you don’t “intend” to receive answers to. English does have implied meanings but not to the degree of mind reading. You may think that it is a rhetorical question because you don’t see it to be the most workable tech know to us. I see it as that until someone shows me (or I find on my own) a better system and I am willing to debate that statement with evidence and proof. I you are truly willing to debate the question then go for it. Otherwise don’t make me waste my “breath”.

              And finally: “how would you describe in less than 5 sentences the page you think I am on” (Just curious)

              • I am sure you want Monte to respond, but i couldnt help notice that your upset might be an opportunity to address some pride button you have connected with your spiritual state. You do not like your certainty challenged. Monte’s post, which I agree with and found well reasoned in its live and let live approach to religious opinion, seems to have unsettled and angered you. Thats always an opportunity for self examination and growth. Monte’s wording, which I am sure was innocent and not meant to denigrate you, may provide opportunity for insight, intentioned or not. (5 sentences)

                • You see this is what I am talking about.
                  You don’t see through the lines.
                  You are not Monte (I hope).
                  You are not me. (That I know for sure).
                  So the question is how can you say you are ‘sure’?
                  And why do you assume that I speak from pride and anger?

                  You think he didn’t intend what he did but that is based on your subjective reality being that you are a decent person perhaps? You do not assume that others do these things because it is hard to confront.
                  He must have meant well! Right?
                  Well I don’t do that any more. After 40 years on this planet I finally woke up and see between the lines. Trust me Monte will never admit to the fact that I was right even if I was 100% right. It requires true greatness to admit to such and only very few can rise above their ego and admit. But it does happen once in a blue moon.

                  And because I confront and don’t back down or pretend to be overly humble or sugar coat all my lines with ‘IMO’ and ‘pretty please’ I must be angered. Do you really think I am angry because I dare to confront?

                  This morning I woke up with a cognition. It is an empirical fact that those who go through the same school do not end up with the same uniform understanding of all the materials. You can look at elementary or high school or universities, it does not matter. The result is all the same. Let’s take for instance Mathematics. Even though everyone is presented the ‘same’ materials and opportunities in the school only very few will rise to be true math wizards. These are the people who already had great interest in the subject and therefore did all they can to master it. The rest tends to just learn enough to pass the grades to the degree they wish their report card to look good. But don’t believe me by any means please! Look for yourself and see if what I am saying is right. A major oversight (one that I was subject to also) is to assume that SC will create one uniform OT VIII or clear or whatever state so long as the person goes through the required steps. So not true. Of course I understand that when I come out and talk about this phenomena openly It is I who is upsetting others. In particular those who did not excel so much in SC. It is only natural that they will get upset as they have bypass charge on the subject. I most sincerely apologize for doing that, but I have to because I know something that can help. People do best when they get to follow the course of their own calling. Too many people have been attracted into SC with false circumstances, ideas, expectations or promotions.
                  Who’s fault that is is not my goal to debate. What’s done is done. What to do now is the question. I recommend for all who do not feel like they got all that they should have out of SC to look for themselves and find what their true calling is. Most people can move passed the fact that they are not math wizards after school as they know deep down it wasn’t their call. It’s not like they are going to blame the subject (the tech) of Math. Some do but most people do not. Those who blame Math itself to me are like the one’s who blame SC tech.
                  I most sincerely wish for them to find their true call without having to put SC tech down.

                  I am here ready to speak logic but what I tend to get instead is emotional response. Of course I know I am pissing in the wind with such attempts. Because those who didn’t get SC well are the least likely to engage in a core tech values debate. Instead they will try to take the debate to other arenas. Personal attacks and such. Throw out a question and make me wrong for answering. This is textbook behavior.

                  The bottom line is that I come off (again) as the angry bird here for speaking the truth and trying to point out that perhaps blaming the tech is not beneficial really for anyone.

                  So now considering all that. Do you really think I am upset?
                  Monte did mean to covertly invalidate me. I know that. I called him on that. I also know he will not admit to that. I have spotted the intention and as-ised it so you see it can’t harm me. But if I don’t say anything about it and let it go then other readers subconsciously will register the the dirt mark on me. Of course when I confront the dirt mark may even be bigger but that’s not going to keep me silent for the sake of others reading.

                  People spreading doubts about the tech on this blog and wherever else is like putting down Mathematics because they didn’t get it.
                  THAT IS MY POINT!

                  Challenging my opinion but then taking it into emotion land and correction of attitude and attacking my personality all are all non factual nonsense! Where are the facts? I’m here ready to debate.
                  But no. My attitude has to be attacked instead. And then suggestions are made that I am angry and emotional.
                  This is natter. Natter about the tech. Then natter about those who defend the tech.

                  If anyone is upset here, trust me it is those who natter about the tech.
                  I am merely here ready to debate in an attempt to defend.

                  What are you here to do?

                  • First Rule. I cannot be 100 percent “sure” that Monte did not mean to hurt your fellings and elevate himself over you. But reading the postings here of Monte and yourself and so many others I can get a feeling for whether a person would have that “need”. I didnt sense it. But I do often see posters asserting their own views and belief systems. And we all recognize a being wants and needs to be right, most of the time. All Monte was doing, in my view, was asking you to let others be right if they think their system is the “best”. In order to do that, you would have to couch your view that scientology is the “best”, in terms which do not alienate other, or qualify that statement for yourself. It doesnt sound like you want to do that. No one asked you to compromise your integrity, just ohave some appropriate manners as this can be a touchy subject. So as a result of your position you will get a “Monte” trying to tell you nicely to give others some space and at worst you will get someone telling you to stop drinking the Kool-aid. You asked why I am here. First, I have a lot of time on my hands. Secondly, I know the “tech” can work and be very beneficial. Most here do as well, or they would not waster their time or attention being and posting here. I would like to see scientology freely in use outside the control of any organization. So i support this blog and related activities. But i recognize their are many paths up the mountain and which one is the “best” is a manner of opinion.

                    • Thanks for the high ARC response. I do understand an see your point. I do understand also that there are two kinds of “best”. Objective and subjective. I tend to only say “best” about something being that I am quite scientific in my thinking when I see it very much over the borderline of statistically being the best. My observations are based on not just self. It is not an opinion of mine nor is it a view of mine. It is a scientifically provable fact that I have observe also. Empirical information. Of course to observe an empirical information to be true one must have enough clarity to understand and conduct the necessary research. This inherently means that not everyone will be able to do that. Those people can voice their opinion just as much as I do. The fact that they can do that does not make the right. The fact that I can voice my opinion does not make me right either. The only thing that can make me right is any individual verifying for themselves that what I say is true. Mathematics is the best number system we know of. Math however is part of basic education and has been around for so long that it is not really being question. One can just state that and others agree readily. SC tech on the other hand is considered a controversial subject by many at best. Even those who are into it have differing opinion. Those who do not get it and did not get what they wanted out of it are the list likely to be able to observe and admit the empirical statement that it is the “best” statistically speaking. Their own subjective reality will not support such observation. All the noise generated by DM and the likes of him are here to support their view that it is not the best. And the fact that it was not the “best” subjectively for them
                      distorts their view of the whole.

                      The point I am making is that such people should consider that the right thing to do would be not to speak down about the tech just because it didn’t work for them. Because doing so woks against the dynamic of the tech getting to those it would have worked for.

                      I do appreciate your optimism I just don’t share it any more.
                      I’ll do my best not to appear like I am taking it personally, but it seems like people have a hard time grasping the idea that what I do I do it because of third dynamic concerns. I do not know it all but I do know enough to see what is going on with and about the stalling of the tech. Therefore I see that wishful thinking and hoping is not enough. We need to help those who didn’t get from SC what they expected to either get it or realize that this isn’t for them and help them to move on to whatever their real call is.
                      Otherwise they drag us all down and I can’t even blame them for it.

                      Mentioning my integrity, Kool-aid and such is really unnecessary. This is not about me. This is about us getting SC back on the rails one derailed person at a time. This is about us correcting the false advertisement/idea/think/notion that SC will deliver to all a uniform end result. It most certainly does not! It is us helping people in trouble be able to find their real call if that wasn’t SC. It us about us not jumping on one another for trying to do that and insinuating that they have selfish motives, or it is their case talking.

                      It is about us promoting SC for what it really is: a tool to help understand the human psyche first then understand and thereby resolve life more efficiently through the understanding of the psyche.
                      It is about us clearing up the MUs that it is a religion.

                      I hope that helps clearing up the issue that it is about me.

                      I must admit I do get ticked off one in a while when people use their time and money spent on SC as a means to advocate their understanding of it and then state that it doesn’t work. But realize that I get ticked off on the third dynamic only. I am free and clear to do my bridge all the way and subjectively there is nothing anyone can say to ever take any of that away from me. Distorting the understanding of SC and thereby preventing it from reaching my fellow men is what I am against. So you see I am not some wacko running lose here spilling emotions. I am the wacko who “thinks” he can see through the lines of those covertly working against the tech by being nonfactual and turning debates into personal attacks.

              • Thank you for such a generous, rich and insightful response. And just to be clear First Rule, my gratitude is genuine. You response was the first thing I read this morning and it really opened up some channels for self exploration. It was an unexpected gift.

                Now, about this “page” metaphor I introduced into this exchange….the following is my truth as it is considered to be in this moment: I do not consider any one ‘page’ to be more or less than another. In one’s journey through time and space there is no randomness. We cannot but be at the right place at the right time. You and I are not on the same ‘page’ First Rule and that does not translate into a matter of one being greater or lessor than the other. Instead, it’s a matter of each of us being exactly where we are meant to be in our journey.

                You posed a wonderful question First Rule: “So why do we do it really? I mean state ‘IMO’? It is really a disguise. It’s like saying “I think blah blah blah”, “but you don’t have to think blah blah blah” (then think to self: even though I am convinced beyond a doubt).” Okay, I ponder on this for a while and here’s what I came up with….my truth, my conviction, my faith, my belief, my certainty and my understanding are mine and they exist within not apart from me. The instant I extend any one of those states noted above outside of myself to another, then the best they can do is carry the weight of an opinion. And no matter how much force I put into it, it remains an opinion. Knowing this is why, when I do extend my truths outside of myself, I attempt to be mindful of not doing so in a manner that excludes another’s beliefs, truths, understandings, etc.

                I apologize First Rule for not being as generous with my response to you as you were in your response to me. But I really don’t have anything more to say. Well, I do have one more thing… the ‘Bank’ at its best is suspicious and at its worst is vicious.

                All the Best,

                • “Well, I do have one more thing… the ‘Bank’ at its best is suspicious and at its worst is vicious.”


                  • Actually never mind the question … I’ve made my points. My opinion is stated. Take it or leave it. SC tech to me is the best attempt anyone has done so far to supply a user’s manual to this thing called a ‘mind’. Those who do not agree to me are equivalent to those who question Mathematics being the best number system possible. Just like Math SC can still be explored further, but those who do not really have a neck for it will not excel in either.

                    There have exists some misleading propaganda around SC tech. That is a fact. The grades and courses promise to deliver something which is true for some percent of the population. Say 80%. But not true for the rest. So for those it does not deliver as promised, it will build charge instead. It is not my place to apologize for that mistake. But it is my place to take what is usable and make the best of it. That’s all any of us can really do.

  3. Yes, some can become trapped by their own intellect and knowing the mechanics of how to disect and evaluate living. Just another way false pride or ego displays itself and traps its host.. Until they let it go, they will always be the drop of rain and never the ocean.

  4. For me this post shed’s a whole new perspective and places a new level of importance on what I believe to be L Ron Hubbard’s most important conclusion: “One is only as valuable as he serve’s others.” That is certainly true in my humble opinion. So true I believe it to be a ancient truth.

    And what a true joy it is. Beats the pants out of merely serving oneself. And I find people are motivated to learn more in order to serve others better. Serving only oneself, one tends to want to maintain the status quo.

    IMHO, serving others is the only way you can “have it both ways.”

    • Thet’s why auditors have gains auditing others. That’s why we feel compassion. That’s why we are the Dynamcs.

    • Good point Haydn – the quote is on a plaque under a photo of LRH in my courseroom: ‘a being is only as valuable as he can serve others.’

      • I’ve been chewing on this line for a while in the back of my mind and was going back and forth whether to say anything or not: ‘a being is only as valuable as he can serve others.’

        I wish it was so!

        In our current society this needs to be extended to hold true.
        Something like: ‘a being is only as valuable as he can serve or pretend to serve others.’

        Don’t get me wrong I truly understand the line. I would have even agreed with it 100% a year or two ago. LRH was somewhat of an optimist. So was I up until recently. I think I am becoming more of a realist. Which is why I can’t leave a sentence like that alone.

        Value of course is dependent on viewpoint. And I get it that this sentence is meant from the viewpoint of higher dynamics. From such larger picture viewpoint it is 100% true. But looking at the large picture only gives us half the truth. I understand now that we have to get down into the mud to really understand what is going on. As a result in this society in its current condition I can not ignore the fact that people can and do get paid, rewarded and acknowledged all the time for false and pretentious services as well as reaping the rewards due to others.

        I used to brush such under the rug in my mind and dismiss it with various different justifications. A favorite one was that such events are rare and if I focus on the positive these will sort themselves out. Man was I ever wrong. Not only are such activities prevalent to the degree of crippling our societies but it also grows as it spreads like a virus.

        I almost wish I could go back to being optimistic about this. Almost.
        Now I am stuck being the one who is bursting bubbles all the time.
        Of course many are going to look at me like some down-tone party pooper. But I swear I feel like being on the titanic screaming “iceberg” but people are too busy partying to listen. Not because I am special or something like that, but only because I happened to be near the front of the damn ship.

        Sorry if I Rain on anyone’s parade now, in the past or future, but I don’t think we can just postulate ourselves out of this mess. I think more is required of us if we are to make a difference.

        • Fly on the wall.

          First Rule, you have given yourself the con. Try not to sink us. Nothing wrong with that LRH quote. You spent so much time talking about side issues and yourself. Lots of filler as if your getting paid by the word.

          • Wow. Thanks for not listening. ICEBERG!

            It’s all about me. You got it man. Go back to sleep. Sorry for having disturbed your dream.

            I write a book and you handled me with 4 short and one almost complex sentences making it all about me. Sure man whatever floats your boat.

            I’m telling you you we are sinking, and you turn that around into me sinking us? Clever man. Where did you learn to be so cruel?

            I mean if you were at least elevated and thought that I write all this because I have issues, then at least you could have made an effort to handle my origination with some ARC.

            Where is the ARC man? Have you even considered what if this pesky long writing mofo going by the alias First Rule is actually trying to say something because he cares about others?

            But hey, all I can do is say “Iceberg” and guys like you are successfully wearing me down.

            So you win,

            I shut up.

            Oh wait. Getting paid by the word. That is below the belt!

            When you manage to conjure up some ARC let me know.

            • Sorry for the word repeat (you you) believe it or not it was a mistake and didn’t just leave it there to get an extra two cents for it.

              • Fly on the wall.

                Touchy. ML, Fly

                • Thank you for the self portrait Fly on the wall. There are people here that can judge others by their ability to handle other’s originations. That’s the healthy kind of judgmentalism. That which you insinuate others of doing is what you are most likely guilty of. You insinuate I am getting paid. Which means perhaps it is you who is getting paid to write here. Question is: To what purpose and by who? Clearly not to be a friendly voice here, nor to calm things down with ARC. No buddy you have just demonstrated as much ARC as Charles Manson.

                  And before you try to turn this around on me and insinuate that all I am doing is finger pointing. I am trying to wake people up and urge them to look for themselves and be able to spot dishonest people who have hidden agendas. That message will inherently step on the toes of those targeted. Who will be coming back at me with non creative criticism such as personal attacks. Never touching the subject matter at hand.
                  Congrats Fly! You just took the bate. You’ve been sucked in by my message like a fly to the zapper.

                  Let’s see what we got from you:
                  “First Rule, you have given yourself the con.” (Eval, negation.)
                  “Try not to sink us.” (attempt to run my message against me)
                  “Nothing wrong with that LRH quote.” (Negation, non-factual response avoiding the matter at hand with the intention to nullify)
                  “You spent so much time talking about side issues and yourself.” (Non factual personal attack insinuating that I am selfish full of case, intention to misguide others to think I am not worthy of their time/attention)
                  “Lots of filler as if your getting paid by the word.” (Insinuation)

                  Suppressing origination. Evaluative and non factual. Hm … I wonder if LRH has ever said anything about that? (rhetorical question)

                  Ladies and gentlemen, Meet the inceberg!

                  Fly, thank you for demonstrating for me who I am talking about.

                  Personal attacks do not work on me any more. You are not going to make me swear, blow up or blow. The only thing you will achieve is expose yourself and your true intentions.

                  If I was wrong about you, you would have addressed the matter at hand that I am talking about. Simple negation is not factual. Opinion is not factual. Give me something factual that is not your case Fly!

                  Talk me down. Show me with logic and facts how I’m wrong.
                  What’s up buddy? Cat got your tongue. Come on give me more than a one word sentence.

                  Oh wait perhaps you know I am right, so you will avoid the subject matter at all cost?

                  Now let me tell you something FLY. Personally me to you. I’ve got this Iceberg thing figured out. Yes. To the degree where you would accuse me of being full of myself.

                  Let me predict your response.

                  1. Blow.
                  2. Come back with yet another short jab.
                  3. Come back with more nonfactual attacks. Here are some ideas for you: Perhaps bring something up from the past. Try to find out something bad about me and use that. Emphasize how I am full of myself. Anything nonfactual and not having to do with the subject matter will do.
                  4. Pretend to address the subject matter shortly. But then turn it back onto personal attacks and such again.

                  If you are in fact the iceberg, then there is no way what so ever that I can steer you back to the subject matter and keep you there long enough for a decent debate without personal attacks from you.

                  But you see, that right there is the proof.


                  • Fly on the wall.

                    First Rule, let me apologize for getting inside your head. I have no interest in staying there and the folks here have better things to discuss and read than having their attention brought back to it.

                    • Who said you have gotten into my head? You flatter yourself. Also I’ve missed the part where you would be the authority as to define here on this blog what interests other people should have. The “the folks here have better things to do” really? That’s not an opinionated statement or absolute at all. You are continuing to spill your ignorance. Who are you to define what is worthy to come back to and what is not? If you ask me people should keep coming back to this exactly as long as THEY feel like it and not until you the “Fly on the wall” opinion leads them from here. Can you try granting people at least a little bit of beingness here? Hm ?

                      I mean my message went through moderation. Did that fact pass you by?
                      The moderator of the blog didn’t think it should be tossed out. Aren’t you getting a bit ahead of yourself telling people what to do on a blog you do not own? If you want to move on please by all means. Your attempt to steer others away from here with your non factual opinionated illusion is telling me that I have stepped on a toe.

                      Aside from that you have done exactly as I have predicted (#2). Tried to disguise your true intentions (that is to suppress my comm) by a quick fake apology. Then another hidden attempt to insult. Just another quick jab.

                      Every sentence you write is giving you away more and more.

                      In case you haven’t noticed you are presenting yourself as the perfect example of what I am trying to warn about.

                      YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ANYTHING I HAVE WRITTEN DIRECTLY, OR SAID ANYTHING FACTUAL. (plain negation without reason/evidence is not a factual argument)

                      Let me guess. You never will get back to the subject matter.

                      Now let me guess your next move.
                      Play the upset-blow card.
                      Direct attention to how I have singled you out for no apparent reason.
                      Pretend to be the subject of an uncalled for attack.
                      And then attempt to make me wrong by blowing for a while or for good.

                      Of course I could be a step or two ahead. You may try a few more jabs.
                      But you are wasting your time.

                      You are not addressing the matter at hand and that is all one needs to know if one is looking for an outpoint.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      I think both ya’ll ought to take a cool look at this comm cycle and thus objectivize it, thus releasing its grip upon ya’ll.

                    • Fly, if you haven’t done so yet then I recommend you read what oraclemysticism posted. That’s how high ARC communication is done.

          • Nothing like making people wrong for being here and communicating! He IS getting paid by the word!

            Your Pay for Living

            An article by L. Ron Hubbard, from the Postulates & Live Communication Professional Course

            Very funny thing has been happening lately. I’ve had a fellow working for me. Of course, he’s on a payroll. He’s being paid in cash, but there’s something very funny about it. He keeps going out and stealing trees off other people’s property and planting them on mine. He keeps going out and getting discounts on pipe and motors and things like that and then handing me the discount. Why? Because I’m a good fellow? Nope. He’s getting better pay—better pay involved than cash. Communication.

            What do you live for? What do you want all these wild experiences for?. . .

            People live for communication. And the pay is communication. And that’s all the pay you will ever get for anything is communication. And if you for one moment believe that communication is bad, then you’ve broken down through the crust and there’s no pay possible from there on out if you live to another 186 trillion years.

            Now, you know people that think money is bad. You know this. Most people will work for money and think they’re doing something. But you know people that will get to a point on working for money that they say it’s very bad. And they will give something away or they will give their services away but they can’t accept money for it. Got the idea? Hm? Money is bad. Money is evil. They have broken down through and have become MEST at that point where—not where money is, because money is just your example—where they believe communication is evil. When communication becomes evil, when there’s many things you cannot communicate with, you have just lost your pay. You can’t now be paid for anything.

            The lilies of the field broke down through that and started to grow lilies. Hoped somebody would come by and look at least once in a while. Got the idea?

            Your body is solid because it hopes someday somebody will say something to it. You got that? People will come along and they will stand in front of you, right up here, see? “How are you?” they will say. They hope you will say, “Hello.” And they actually would settle for, “Get the hell out of my way.” See, that’s better than no communication. Any communication is better than no communication. Anything is better than nothing to a thetan. We knew that for a long time.

            But any communication is better than no communication and a person is unable to find life worth living to the degree that he has found certain kinds of communication bad. Got the idea? Now, we’re talking now about a live communication. And we are not talking about bullet communication. You understand this? Talking about a live communication.

            —L. Ron Hubbard

            Quote Video: Why You Can Audit


            Some of what you’ll find in the Postulates & Live Communication Pro Course

            Why is it that communication is the only thing that will cause the dissolution of MEST?
            Ron reveals how he discovered and codified the Tone Scale in the early days of Dianetics.
            Find out what the component parts of invalidation are and how to spot and handle it.
            How is misownership of responsibility, on yours or another’s part, aberrative?
            LRH gives the best possible way to handle and raise a child to be self-determined.
            How can you get a very solid personality into two-way communication?
            In this series you will get the most complete definition of the service facsimile to date.
            How was Science of Survival used at this stage of development?
            Find out the surprising answer to where deja vu comes from.
            Success from the ACCs

            “This journey with LRH—studying the ACCs—has produced miraculous positive gain for me. The truths of the universe are indispensible to me and I learn every one of these truths in such a way that I can fully understand it and I can apply it every day. On this ACC I learned something I have been longing to know for a very long time: how a thetan got from innate native state into the MEST and other universes. The answer to that question is also the answer to the question how universes are made and how they operate. I have priceless knowledge that will serve me well, help others and make salvation of this planet, all thanks to LRH.”

            — J.A.


            Individual ACCs

            1st American ACC
            2nd American ACC
            3rd American ACC
            4th American ACC
            5th American ACC
            6th American ACC
            7th American ACC
            8th American ACC
            9th American ACC
            Postulates & Live Comm
            Axiom of the Stable Datum
            4th London ACC
            Rehabilitating Power of Choice
            Remedy of Havingness
            Application of Games Theory to Processing
            15th American ACC
            16th American ACC
            17th American ACC
            18th American ACC
            19th American ACC

            • OK this stuff is priceless. Thanks for the quotes oraclemysticism.

              Especially this:
              “And that’s all the pay you will ever get for anything is communication.”
              Just blew me away.

    • That’s exactly where I am as well, Haydn.

    • About an hour ago my PC, close to the end of session said, “you know what brings me joy? Helping others. That’s when I feel alive.” Big F/N.

      Then I read this post.
      What a coincidence.

    • Haydn,

      I once got a fortune cookie that said, “You posses a unique ability to sense and know higher truth”.

      So I got that goin’ for me (Bill Murray Caddie Shack reference).

      Physics datum such as, “The gravitational pull of a mass on an object is inversely proportional to the square of the distance of the object from the center of the mass.” have corollary’s to Dianetics Axioms, Scientology Axioms and the Factors. From these, as Marty says above, the whole of existence and non-identified existence can be experienced and understood.

      Indeed, our very objective existence proves that “Consideration is senior to mechanics” and “Consideration is senior to MEST.

      Ah, but what a (albeit pleasant) dream-like state it would be to achieve the high plain of freedom from non-objective reality.

      Could it be that the need to help others creates others needing help?

      • I hear you, Scott. But I don’t think Marty is referring to Newtonian Physics, that certainly only explains the laws of movement or non movement of MEST — gross matter. Quantum Mechanics is a different ball game altogether. Or should I call it a wave game?

    • I rarely visit this blog but I read this post from “haydn” and immediately started applying the “service to others” mentality (or trying, anyway). It is very easy to unconsciously drift toward selfish motives. “This will really make Fred and Wilma happy” becomes “Damn Fred and Wilma! They’re taking up all my time!” When I consciously “end cycle” on the selfish motive and resume “service to others”, I can feel the stress go away. It is surprising how many opportunities to serve others arise when selflessness is foremost in the mind. I may test this for awhile and see what happens. It can’t possibly do any harm and it may even help materialize my formerly selfish desires, which would be the epitome of “having it both ways”!

      • Well put, Ed. I am finding that many more of my “selfish desires” are realized through a selfless service of others than was the case before. It is almost as if the world cooperates or surrenders whereas before I had to “battle it”. But please let me know what you find.(

  5. Hello Marty,
    I liked your post.

    At some point I had to think of this line from The Factors:
    “And above these things there might be speculation only.
    And below these things there is the playing of the game.”


    • Yes, is is inevitable. Simply because it has now been viewed, and considered. The toothpaste is most definitely out of the tube. Undeniably, observation through logic starts the cycle of duplication, but beyond the essence or use of logic (as good as it is, Einstein and LRH both penned that imagination, for example, is way higher scale; creative knowingness, higher still), LRH opened the key door with and to as-isness, and therein duality will eventually fade out of self-determinism, into a pan-determined view, and then finally, to a Static state, whence it came.

      Unfortunately the “Cause” LRH talked about in Factor One, the Cause before the beginning – that Cause, that was “entirely” consumed with creation of “effect” – has had, and would still have some rough bumps if it could somehow manfest “itself” now, a doubtful consideration at that. Just look at the manifestation of true “OT” if there is any question on this… (And IMHO why LRH thought he failed…)

      This Cause (one might call it newly, a “Dynamic Static”), as you have inclined in your piece Marty, must get over and rise above its penchant for otherness in such limited ways as individualism, terminalization, power, ability, control – even beingness – which by these very essences leads and continues Cause to be nothing less than eventual and perpetual “effect.”

      I think SKM’s post is most provident: Again from the Factors… Above these things there is speculation (Lo, I think there is a bit more than speculation now, though, since ’53…🙂; and below them, is the playing of the “game.”

      This is the big one: If one is to truly transcend, and stop aberration at its source – all games – no matter their cloth or weight – must be eschewed. This is the major hurdle. As Conceiving a Static (as stated in COHA) was unworkable. (But it didn’t have to be.🙂 Unworkable, both for LRH, as well as for an “earlier” Static, and thus games became the route and the order of the day…

      Yet, “All games are aberrated. Some are fun.”

      LRH FOT

      So do we want to get out? Or just continue having fun on and in these playing fields…? (Are we having fun yet?!!!🙂

      • The quote from FOT chapter 12 “Exact Processes” is:

        “Rule – all games are abberative, some are fun.”

        Anyone care to venture WHY? E.g. what is the process of abberation in playing a game?

        • Carcha,

          I will attempt to give your questions a shake. The actual key question in all of this is WHY play a game in the first place? A game by definition includes goals, barriers, winning and losing, and most importantly, unknowness and not-is.

          An infinite, all knowing consciousness, or as LRH referred to it, Static, created games (“Forever” – see the Factors). Yet the components of a game matched against the apparent inherent knowness and breadth of Static do not match up or make sense in any way shape or form.

          For Static to begin down a road wherein it had to dumb itself down bit by bit (by coming off logic into gradient identification and then further to alter-is, back and forth into more and more not-is…), by establishing and then playing out wins and loses, complete with barriers on all sides, is a process of stupidity for the ages!

          Yet this leads to another, even more basic question: Why would an infinite all knowing Cause debase and break itself into alien and separate points and dimensions, replete with complete unawareness and future and foreign randomity – that it could neither foresee, change or control – FOREVER? (Like become life as krill or weeds etc.) Now that is a question!

          Most people that I have talked to about this say it was because Static was “bored” and decided to spice things up a little. Some say it needed adventure. But this is nothing more than pure reasonableness and lack of confront on the basic subject and question. I venture that this boredom/adventure was factually “terror” in one form or another: Something that became so egregious within it, so horrific as to make it drop into the CDEINR scale in first place and finally arriving at R (i.e. Refuse = Refusal to be “itself”) and thereby choosing, as a final ultimate thrust – unawareness over knowingness. Well, it would take a lot of boredom to do that IMO.

          This opens up a whole other kettle of fish and line of thought (if pursued…), but it, I hope, speaks to something on the subject of “aberration.”

          • 2cents,

            Thank you for playing! Your analysis is really very good, and similar to mine, with an (unresolved) difference concerning boredom and terror. The question WHY, I think is really brilliant (but goes a bit above and beyond why games are abberative – as indeed you indicate). This is more using different words to describe the same things, but I think a principal practical abberative factor is that a thetan gets immersed, has wins and losses, and forgets how he got into a game. For various reasons he cannot, or does not, as-is his way back out of it. Per Factor 24, ” … the viewpoints consider more and more that the dimension points are valuable”. Your mention of barriers is interesting in conjunction with The Factors, since barriers could be conceived of a something a thetan comes to consider valuable, and does not as-is. But I see the same things you cite (perhaps especially the progressive diminution and what I call ‘playing a game within a game’, e.g. being in a body, then racing cars). A current emphasis of mine and no doubt of many others in Scn is to develop one’s personal ethics with primary senior purposes in closer alignment with what you referred to as “static”. That’s clearly senior to adopting one’s agreed-upon identity (husband, profession, calling) as “everything” sort of like using blog name and eventually coming to believe one is that blog name, introducing oneself by that name instead of one’s proper, given, name. (Just for grins at academics, my one-sentence answer is, “Any game involves something other than as-is-ness”.)


            • Carcha,

              You’re welcome. I love games – but only if you can as-is them! And your one sentence answer: “Any game involves something other than as-is-ness.” Fabulous!

              But to the heart of aberration, it’s all in the Factors. One just has to see, and then follow the bread crumbs!

  6. Um… I’m going to chose my words very carefully here…

    Firstly… Thank you.

    Secondly… Thank you.

    Thirdly… Not thank you… Perhaps just…


    Now the “earth bound” me would like to spew some verbiage.

    Marty… I have been wishing for such a long time now that those of us who have been affected, influenced or “torn” by “Scientology” (whatever version… Dark, light… “Grey” even) would use their experience to search further and find peace. Hubbard’s legacy, for me anyway, is like a winning lottery number that has been shredded, pulped and then buried. The effort it takes to put enough together to “strike it rich for life” can often be so debilitating that many are better off buying their tickets each week and hoping. But some, and for me you are at the top of that list, have figured out the puzzle he left behind.

    It’s all there… along with a lot of traps mixed in… But once you figure it out… Well… For me it’s beyond words… And I certainly don’t need a “qual division” to verify it.

    God speed brother… Your journey is a valuable one. My only hope is you take as many as you can with you.

  7. Love this Marty…..:)
    I Believe we are all connected in some way and that there is a God/Source.
    And that Love….Compassion and gratitude are all important to keep us moving higher and higher. That’s why I don’t see any reason to fight the fight anymore with the Church….They all know who they’ve harmed and they all know that it was their choice to make something helpful into something harmful…..The universe will dispose of them when they are not needed any longer but lesson’s must be learned. Scientology was a path I took to learn some really important lessons on my journey….I’m eternally grateful for what I learned both positive and negative…..It was nothing more than a step on my path.🙂

  8. Perfect.

    Although I cannot see into the future, I can almost guarantee that within the next 5 years tops – we will see Marty sitting with the other key speakers in a symposium with religious and science leaders as they discuss action plans to helping the world.

    Perhaps, for example, at the Harvard Mind Science Symposium

    NOTE TO TONY dePHILLIPS: Marty’s last four lines are:

    “Is one then a separate, distinct identity or a part of a single infinity?
    It would appear that it all depends upon how one is viewing himself and the universe.
    Can you have it both ways?”

    Tony, think of the waves in the ocean as they come to shore. Each one is unique. Yet each is the ocean.


    • Christine,
      “Although I cannot see into the future, I can almost guarantee….”

      Try not looking directly at it and see what you perceive. Also, effort makes it go away!

    • Love this Christine!

    • I just got that reference in the mail Windhorse. ( the one that talks about the bulk of the population are minion in origin, like animals, grass and trees) Thanks. It is kind of bizzare in my opinion. LRH says that not all living beings are capable of attaining O.T. He also says in 63, the date of this PL ” We are then only months away from having (underlined) O.T.’s, a year at the most. No Scientologist need be told what that means.”
      More false PR from LRH.
      I wish this would have been broadly promoted when I was in that not everyone was capable of making it to OT. I would have quit a lot earlier.

      • Tony – this PL was used by the Ship Regges and others to “prove I was a big being” and therefore should give more $.

        I found it somewhat depressing at best and at worse -which is what I currently believe just plain wrong.

        IF all beings are basically good then ALL beings should be capable of moving up to “OT” – just might not be in a linear fashion – meaning as someone else gets “OT” I’m still at a lower ability – etc

        To me this PL was quite “alarming” and perhaps the beginning 1963 of a very “them against us” mentality wherein he urged OTS to ban together and that single OTs could not function well.

        Which is IMHO BS

        I’m glad you didn’t quit earlier, you wouldn’t be here. 🙂

        All steps in journey are valuable …


  9. This is the deepest, most thought-provoking blog post I’ve seen, here or anywhere else. I really thank you.

    • I tend to believe that COB contributed to it (unintentionally, of course).

      If subjected to year-long major harassments there are just 2 possibilities : to suffer and decay – or to increase necessity level in a way that puts one into transcending mode, makes one leave traditional humanoid agreements and evolve towards a higher direction.

      My 2 cents.

      • I know what you’re saying. I’ve actually told people that my bad experiences in the CoS gave me some of the most valuable gains I got in Scientology. Among other things, I learned how easy it is to stop being your own orientation point. How valuable is that!🙂

        • Hardship overcome is ability won …🙂

          And I bet you and me and lots of readers will never again join a cult that pretends expansion but presents shrinking, that speaks theta but craves money, that idolizes ethics but accumulates ugly secrets … well, they even can’t keep their dirty secrets secret, what a failure.

  10. Wow, wow Nice post Marty!

  11. When the waves of thought are stilled, that which is real and eternal is effortlessly perceived. Knower knowing and known as one. This is Yoga: union of the individual soul with the Supreme Being. The Unfied Field, the All, the Everything.

    Quantum physics and the ancient Vedas are having a sort of love affair at this moment in time.

    Men in the Himalayan hills around 2000 BC discovered within themselves that which science is only beginning to understand.

    And these ancient men and their discoveries are foundational in the worlds religions and philosophies.

    The bridge was built a long time ago. Many have crossed it……….. many have crossed it.

  12. ***** +1 *****

  13. Marty, sounds like our are hanging with the mystics and saints. Made me think of Rumi, Hafiz, and the like, not to mention various non-dual teachers. You are also on the same track as Maurice Bucke who published his classic Cosmic Consciousness in 1901.

    Can you have it both ways? Of course. And so goes rigidity when paradox is embraced.

    Quoting Marty:
    “However, it seems that only when one transcends identity and the need for comfort, wealth, and power and the need to differentiate, identify and associate in order to collect and maintain them, that the higher truths of the universe can be directly experienced and perceived.”

    Sharing those higher truths is often no more than showing up and being yourself… since words just won’t do it.

    “The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you’ve gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you’ve gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you’ve gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”
    ― Zhuangzi

  14. Marty wrote :
    In that experience, the universe does not respond to one’s causation. It is not something separate, apart, or even associated with you. There is no association or differentiation between you and it. It is you and you are it. It and you simply is.
    Is one then a separate, distinct identity or a part of a single infinity?

    It would appear that it all depends upon how one is viewing himself and the universe.
    It reminded me of the quote by the Astra-physicist :
    “We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”
    ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Yes, my experience is that viewpoint has to have identity i.e. the “I” viewing and without the “I” one is back in consciousness prior to assuming identity.

  15. Thanks Marty. Yes, this is mouthwatering.
    It really helps a PC after each big session win to sit
    down and study over the first 10 Scientology axioms.
    Once you truly know who you are you then can
    transcend to the next level and on up.
    OT phenomena can actually occur (and I am not talking
    about getting a parking space where there were none)
    but they come not from a conscious level decision but
    … well there is no word for it except the closest would
    be LRH’s postulate/intention.
    Love it Marty. By the way, that is your color on that shirt.
    (Just wanted to be a little earthbound here!).

  16. Really Nice job on this one Friend! You know I love this stuff!

    In order to observe something one must place on it a significance. Differentiation, identification, and association are then necessary only to classify and utilize all this significance. In the course of doing so we separate or distinguish ourselves from other beings simply because of the unique experiences each of us have in all this assigning, differentiating, indentifying, and associating. Thus we have our own identities.

    What we forget is that we all create from the “same place” which requires no identity. In fact, its probably better to check it at the door. From where I’m sitting the only way I have been able to explain this place is that it’s sort of nothing and everything all rolled into one.

    From the Swifter and Slower Ways thread Marty posted this very powerful LRH quote.

    “So we had to get out of quantitative thinking, thinking in terms of objects and masses, before we had any real comprehension of existence. And this was very easy to do. Very easy to do. You merely had to define what zero was. And we find that life, basically the awareness of awareness unit in life, is not a thing of quantity – not even vaguely of quantity. It is a thing of quality, of ability. Where you have ability, you have life. Where you have space, energy, mass…I don’t care what kind of energy. The energy contained in your engrams. The energy contained in mental pictures. The space contained in your visios or lack of them. Anytime you have any quantity of any kind, you have walked downhill from life. Just like that. And this works out. This works out in processing, works out gorgeously. – L. Ron Hubbard, Awareness of Awareness, 1 December 1954

    No pun intended (well sort of), I think when one trancends identity the next level of existence is truly a quantum leap above.

    Thanks for this post.


  17. Marty, greatpost. Brian I was going to say a lot of that stuff myself after reading the baghvad gita and other yogi texts. And I love the fact that love aI nd compassion come throigh in this post as I never very much of at an org. Again, I am so glad I discovered your blog Marty

  18. oops my typing needs work

  19. Marty,
    This post really struck a personal chord in me, perhaps more so than any post I have read from you. The words you wrote, themselves, almost don’t seem to make sense…..and yet they surely do. After all they are only words and it seems to me that what you are describing is way beyond words. The thing is that I believe that I know of what you speak and perhaps have experience something in this vein myself. It happened for me while being audited. I was looking before the beginning and discovered that I was and am right here……along with everyone else. Separate, yet not separate. One, yet individual. A living dichotomy…..
    The foregoing are my descriptive words at this time. And I understand that words are but sign posts pointing to things which might possibly be observed.
    I can also really understand how the words of this post, themselves, could easily seem like nonsense. But I like them. They are one of the best attempts I have read at saying the unsayable. Your attempt bespeaks courage and purpose. Thanks.

  20. Congratulations on writing this one, Marty!

    Yes, one can have it both ways since suchness is non-different from voidness. Differentiation, association and identification can seen as the old 40-20-0 scale but also as a closed loop that might be transcended in native state.

  21. Marty from what you write here, what resonates most for me is: “When one observes the whole of existence with no differentiation, identification and association in mind – simply observes the whole of existence as it is – one does not differentiate, identify or associate himself. One is not separate and apart from the whole of existence. One is experiencing nonduality.…… And then you write: “There is no association or differentiation between you and it. It is you and you are it. It and you simply is.”

    The beauty is that this “it” can be known, experienced, felt, embraced. It’s a great fortune that one can be “it”, not just think about “it. A facetious Indian saying goes: “Meditation is not what you think.”

    Many wise men and saints have described “it” in their own words, each with their own sensitivity and color.
    I like this quote from Kabir, a XVth century mystic from India, as he describes being “it”, which he calls: “Him”
    “ The flute of the Infinite is played without ceasing, and its sound is love.
    When love renounces all limits, it reaches truth.
    How widely the fragrance spreads! It has no end, nothing stands in its way.
    Subtle is the path of love!
    Therein there is no asking and no not-asking,
    I went looking for Him and lost myself;
    The drop merged with the Sea -who can find it now?
    Looking and looking for Him I lost myself;
    The Sea merged with the drop –Who can find it now?
    There one is immersed in the joy of the seeking: plunged in the deeps of love as the fish in the water.
    …Look at you, you madman! Screaming you are thirsty and dying in a desert, when all around you there is nothing but water!”

  22. What I mean by the word “dichotomy”
    (definition #6)
    Definitions 6,7,& 8.

    Perhaps the thought would have been better stated as “an apparent living dichotomy”.
    Your call. I can see it working both ways.

  23. I read the post rather slowly, and thought to myself, what a rich vein of concepts — thank you!

    Then I reflected further, and realized I was looking at the hand of a master pointing at the moon. I then took a glance at the moon — thank you again!

  24. Marty is home.

    The Chinese master Wu-men said “To have a Buddha view and a Dharma view is to be enclosed by two iron mountains.”

    Robert Aitken comments, “The Buddha view is that all is empty. The Dharma view is that all is karma. One is the First Principle, the other is the Second Principle. You are caught in principles. What is the way out? The eucalyptus trees stand motionless in the night air. Only a faraway rooster can be heard.”

    So, do you take the Buddha view or the Dharma view, in your thinking? Which ever one you choose, it will be only the sound of one hand clapping.

    That is what Berdyaev calls “objectivization”, to substitute symbols for reality. To find truth, one must take the Middle Way; you must steer between the Scylla of Buddha-view, and the Charybdis of Karma-view. Because which ever one you choose, it will drag you down into the Abyss. But if you pretend they do not exist, they will likewise drag you down into the Abyss.

    Scylla and Charybdis were mythical sea monsters noted by Homer; later Greek tradition sited them on opposite sides of the Strait of Messina between Sicily and the Italian mainland. Odysseus had to choose which one to confront in order to complete his voyage home.

  25. In Plato’s allegory The Cave there are prisoners who, because of how they’ve been chained up inside the cave, can only see shadows cast upon the wall by various things outside. These things are passing between the sunlight and the mouth of the cave to cause the shadows to be projected. Because the shadows dancing on the walls are all the prisoners have seen for their entire lives within the cave, they eventually begin to interpret the shadows as being real. Thus, their lives become completely devoted to shadows. However, there was one of the prisoners that just didn’t believe in the shadows as much as the others. Something kept telling him that they weren’t really real. He kept having thoughts that there had to be more to life than the experience he was having. Eventually he did manage to free himself from his shackles and was able to make his way out of the cave where he was amazed to discover a new world, a new reality, an enormous reality!

    We all know what happens when he goes back into the cave to share his discovery with the other prisoners still chained and absorbed in shadow games. But, we don’t all know what happened when he again went back outside of the cave to begin exploring the new world. Okay, here’s what might have happened (short version)…..

    For tens of thousands of lifetimes he explored his new universe. And through his journey through time and space he discovered secret after secret and learned many, many truths about what is actually a magnitude and complexity of universes within universes within that would be impossible for most to conceive. He became a master of matter, energy, space and time. But, even in his enormously elevated state of awareness and knowledge, all is not good. He still finds himself lacking and a thought comes to him…”there must be something else, but what? What am I missing” Instantly, he has his answer.

    “You never really left the cave. You never really ceased being a prisoner. When you thought you left the cave you only exchanged one system of shadows for another. Yes, you have accomplished the ne plus ultra of the MEST Universe and it’s seeming infinite dimensions and frequencies, but the MEST Universe is nothing but a meaningless, valueless dream and you are but a character in the dream. It’s not here, You aren’t here and neither you or it have never been here. In fact, “here” has never even existed. Yes, I know, this means that there never was really anything to save from anything. You have awakened in the dream. This is good. Now it is time for you to awaken from the dream. A dream where you believe you had separated from your SELF (Theta – infinite Oneness). Where you believe you are consciousness and as consciousness have to have something to be conscious of. Thus you made the Bank. You and the Bank = duality. And, of course, as you could perceive the Bank outside of yourself, it’s characteristics were opposite those of yours. For example, it can never make anything last nor can it create anything (it can only make) nor can it know. You made the Bank and you gave it the apparency of having eternal life and power. You chose it over yourself. You elected it to be your God. And You gave it power to put you to sleep inside your dream where it then made you another dream. In this dream the Bank convinced you that you had attacked and betrayed Theta by separating from it and that you were in big trouble. After all, you are nothing and Theta is everything. It is coming for you and when it finds you you’re going to suffer a slow painful death. The Bank has given you the “unholy trinity” i.e., sin, guilt and fear. This is its control handle on you. Once the Bank has You thoroughly convinced that you have sinned big time, you’re heavy in guilt and terrified of the inevitable and vengeful wrath of Theta, the Bank presents you with a strategy. A strategy that will protect you. It tells you it will create a world in which you can hide and live safe from Theta. Theta will not be able to see you in this world and you can exist here and be forever safe. You agreed that this was a good strategy and said “Go for it!” The Bank then appears to shatter YOU into trillions and trillions and trillions of individual pieces with seemingly individual minds and then proceeds to project another dream. This one is the entire MEST Universe of duality. You are never ‘in’ this dream. You only believe you are.

    Sigmund Freud had the idea that dreams were the guardians of sleep. He was right but he had no clue how right he was. The dreams are there to keep the mind so distracted with all sorts of problems across the Dynamics that Theta will remain asleep. But, as we all know, there comes a point in every seeming fragment of Theta’s journey through time and space where a thought appears that says, “There’s got to be a better way.” and at that point Theta appears and begins to gently and gradually show us the way home.

    • Hey Monte, are you the same guy who had the blog “Walking round the Elephant’? That too was a very thought-provoking place to go when I was first looking outside the RCS box.

      • Yes, I’m that guy and I’m still walking around that elephant. I never realized that it was such a big ass elephant! 🙂

  26. I would like to sharpen these skills. Do you have any advice as to where to begin?

  27. Thank you Marty and yes, I think you can have both. These are levels of awareness and the higher you go the simpler it gets, thus, you can be part of infinity or separate from it. You correctly noted depends on one´s viewpoint and I will add may also depend on one´s considerations which are above mechanics. But again, the simpler the better and the more fun you can have…is like the joy of creation.

  28. When this moment in time (2009-2013/14) is recorded in history I believe Marty will be known as 1 of only 2 great Scientology philosophers and the one that rescued it from the gutters of irrelevance. The formal church did everything it could to ruin Scientology’s relevance and importance in the world but this movement, whose loudest voice has been Marty Rathbun, has given direction to what so many Scientologists have needed: A way for our philosophy to have a role in the world. Not a way to save the world or clear all the poor wogs. No, just a way to be relevant and a way to contribute to the world as described in the 4th Dynamic. The importance of this cannot be understated. After my lifetime stable datum was shattered 3 1/2 years ago I am now beginning to find meaning again in being a Scientologist. But it is so different and so much more beautiful than the “meaning” I had before. Again, this is very important. To me, to you, to the greater movement of Scientologists whether in, out or confused.

  29. Beautiful text ! It included several line charges for me within its lines🙂

    I wish that the “cravng for power and comfort” had been a major auditing target in LRH’s tech …

  30. I’ve always believed that theta/life force is inherent in all beings; it surrounds us, penetrates us and binds us all together. After a brief exteriorisation during OT TR0 on the STCC I discovered I was my own “soul” but when I sat in the garden later that week watching the flowers, trees, plants, birds, bees, the odd fly, the grass swaying in the breeze, I knew I was part of something far bigger. Some may scoff at the idea of acking blades of grass, but that was the moment when I knew with certainty that for all my selfish wants, desires and marvellous mest hangups, I was no different than the life and its heavenly bodies around me.

    Relish the game and – even if it isn’t – live this life as if it is your last. We are here, all of us, for the pleasure of experience and the experience of pleasure. Embrace it. The more knowledge and experience one absorbs, the more viewpoints one can happily assume to understand and appreciate the true wonder of life and existence, and one’s inherent role within it.

  31. Thanks. Without words. Or, let’s say, with a poem I wrote some years ago. Here is an extract in bad english:
    “- That’s it:
    and observe,
    stand and
    a free dance,

    Yes – the most perfect
    and the widest wavering.

    – Not Beauty nor Oneness
    but its movement,
    its trace,
    the wonderful
    without words.”
    The full poem in french can be found here:

  32. Marty, if I’m tracking with you here, you’re referring to the same thing as LRH when he said you could “be the sunset”. Correct?

  33. This gets into the infiniteness of theta. I think when LRH talked about “OT” or the upper reaches of the tone scale it got into something that is not really describable, or what we were really listening to was his personal experience and reality of that. One concept I got in Scientology is that what you believe is true is true, and reality being a group postulate. That MEST and all the rules of life are true and solid because we say they are and thats it. I think the easist and most comfortable understanding of this is within the known, or within MEST. I will be telekenetic, telepathic, be able to change my location at will (exteriorization), or make things happen in the MEST universe. But what is above that? I wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes as you get beyond these self imposed limitations on OT ability. Sorry if this isnt exactly tracking with what you wrote. It’s just a thought I had.

    What reality I do have on what you are saying here I think realates very much to, for example communication. I think communication is a lot more than two terminals exchanging concepts. Someone else mentioned a blade of grass and I think there is that connectedness there. I dont know if I want to say “oneness” because that has a set definition already, but I think if you just relax and are in the right state of mind you can “breathe in” what the grass is saying and what it’s about.

  34. It seems to me that individual philosophers extending their understanding of life among the ranks of Scientologists have been few and far in between…. Some contend this dearth of free thinking philosophers is because the bus passengers on LRH’s road to total freedom are not allowed to get off and take a look around. I don’t think LRH intended this, but this is no doubt what is happening today in the RCS. And, Miscavige is dramatizing it with a capital “D” by painting the windows black and creating an ignorant cult inside the bus singing a mantra of condemnation of everything outside the blacked windows. This is nothing more than the institutionalizing “blind faith” in the Church of Scientology and it is truly a use of LRH’s technology to enslave the “believers”, even though LRH explained over and over: The Road to Total Freedom in NOT based on belief, but upon personal observation.

    Marty, as a “Scientology Philosopher”, I believe you have broken through a glass ceiling and are moving up a little bit higher.

    You are an excellent author (I wish I had such talent) and for me, the best description of both the ancient and modern Scientology concepts of Transcendence is well stated in your words:

    “It might just be an activity that one cannot do, but instead a state one must actually be in order to realize.”

    Thanks for help along the road to enlightenment…

  35. Now dont take this as an attack, but I just want to give another viewpont here.

    You have given various reasons why some are ridging on your progressive ideas. But these reasons may be acting as an incorrect indication or evaluation for some.
    Personally if I have a hard time with it it’s because I am not sure where or if a line is drawn between the first, or personal spiritual and philisophical discussion and the third, as in a “New Scientology”.
    I understand fully that Scientology isnt “complete” and perhaps it is not the only path to the exclusion of all others. LRH postulated higher states and pushed us toward those states and obviously it has much merit or so many wouldnt be into it. I’m still stuck on the idea that it is a workable system and doesnt need improvement or editing, but does need restoration and preservation.
    Maybe after I have done the whole bridge and understand the subject fully I will have more willingness to accept and create new ideas on how to advance the subject, but right now I am still stuck on KSW.
    That being said, I have no problem with people philosophising, postulating, discussing and creating new realities and ideas. I just dont want those ideas forced on me by some group or be labled a “fundamentalist indy” because I hold slightly different ideas.
    Where this blog is a discussion on a personal level, of personal beliefs and transcendence I like it. This article I like, except for the one point I mentioned.

    • Or, in other words: LRH took a big machete and hacked a path through the dense jungle for who knows how long. I don’t know where he got to or if he made it there, but it seems like I need to go in that direction, so I’m going to stay on that path until it ends. But it is good to have an awareness that you are in a jungle and might need to use your own machete if things get rough.

      • Hi Chris,
        I actually like this comment. It does make sense to me to follow the existing Bridge as LRH laid it out except without all the craziness interjected. Although “the craziness that is interjected” is a matter of opinion isn’t it? But following a person that is doing the Bridge the way you “think they should” is a good idea, up untill the path runs out.

      • Chris,
        I get it. But this is not just “your “problem, it is every human being problem, all of us have tried to wrap our wits around these phenomena for ages.

        I have many times referred Scientologists to other sources than LRH, not to alter any auditing process or Bridge action or to dilute LRH’s Tech in any way, but with the intention of reliving the heavy pressure to conform that Scientology unduly exerts over us.

        Scientology does this, by gradually and cleverly obscuring all other sources, it eventually brings you to the misguided realization that LRH is the “Source” for all knowledge.

        And then, too late, you discover that the simple tool that LRH sold you on, originally offered as an open help for regular folks, has turned into a one thousand ton weight on your shoulders, KSW and all.

        I found early on in Scientology, that I could easily relieve that heavy burden brought upon me and others, by simply pointing out the fact that Truth just is, and that there are as many routes and sources to truth as there are viewpoints.

        Here is an example of somebody attempting to understand and describe these phenomena:

        E.T Gendlin, PH.D. “Process Generates Structures, Structures Alone Don’t Generate Process”
        In this article I refer to written works (see the section on “Philosophy” at
        in a very brief argument. How process produces structure is discussed in four sections:

        I. Process makes structure, and can change and expand it. A process always has many implicit possibilities that are not structures. Process implies and makes the next events.

        II. One way human beings make things is by first making stable separate parts. Then we arrange them together. So we can easily view natural things as if they were made of stable parts.
        But most living things don’t do it that way. They constantly regenerate their parts.
        These are two different ways of making something. With separable parts comes the kind of “space” and “time” that is usually assumed. That kind covers up the implicit process so that most of our experience seems impossible.

        III. I say how the implicit is more precise with more relationships than an explicit structure can provide.
        It interrelates innumerable possibilities that are precise and unfinished because they also imply further.
        They imply one sequence of next events which can “explicate” the generative precision. What actually occurs explicates the implying.
        Each explication brings a fresh further implying.

        IV. The findings of science seem to deny our own experiencing, and vice versa.
        Although the two seem so different, we can think with both logical and experiential precision because they have an inherent relationship.

    • Roger From Switzerland Thought

      Marty has done the whole bridge and so he asks questions.
      He doesn’t intend to change the bridge or the technology. You said it ! standard tech works(!) and Marty never said the contrary and propably is very KSW when Auditing.

      I’ve the feeling that he just looks for the why’s of what happened in the last 60 years !
      If we would do again the same things as were done the last 60 years we would have again the same results as a 3rd dyn.

      Marty doesn’t sell anything, doesn’t do any Marketing or PR he just observes and THINKs.

      If ever the subject of Scientology raises from the ashes as a phoenix it propably would because of this running out of the 3rd and 4th dyn Engramm that is currently going on here.

      It’s an adventure of moving on up a little bit higher continously and this will never stop.

      What you are currently being part of is an attempt in getting the tech in forever !
      Nobody will force you to think in a certain way ! i like your contributions ! And I hope you express your different opinions.

    • I dig what you are saying, Chris. I am a proponent of KSW – I think the PL is brilliant. I also think that it can easily be taken as a whip to use to keep the uppity in line, which is how DM uses it.

      KSW to me means: You have workable, correct technology. You learn it. You apply it. You know it works, and you train people in it so that they duplicate it, and no go wandering off.

      Number 1 is deceptive: “Having the correct technology.” The “correct technology” of 1965 is not the correct technology of 1986 – it was added to, updated. “Correct technology” is NOT everything in LRH’s books, PLs, HCOBs, and other materials. This is an MU DM has foisted on his enablers. The new Scn 0-8 book has something like 4-5 versions of the Havingness Scale. Which one is correct? The book does not say – it just dumps them there for your amusement. Same with the Auditor’s Code. Several versions – which one?

      Correct Technology is NOT what is decreed by fiat by DM and the ‘droids.

      Part of our journey as Scientologists post-church and post rote-acceptance is to study and evaluate the tech to really determine what IS “correct technology.” We have already rejected some of what the church considers Correct Technology (or admin). We rejected the church and the authority of the “ecclesiastical body” – A violation of one of the auditor’s code. So we made up our own minds to some degree. We need to make up our own minds for ALL of it.

      Used to be, Ron was the arbiter of correct tech. He’s dead, and has been dead for the entire lifetime of a Portland Hipster. He’s been dead longer than how old I was when I graduated the BC, and when I did OT III. He is not here to arbitrate.

      Therefore it is up to us individually to keep this stuff going. If we choose to.

      KSW, to me, means, if you study Scientology, study it, and learn it, as it is. Learn how to meter. Learn how to do TRs and run model session. Learn the axioms, the anatomy of the mind, Theta-MEST theory, how to run engrams, how to List and Null, how to recognize a freaking F/N. How to pull a withhold – know the difference between a Withhold and Missed Withhold. Know what ARC is, know what ARC Breaks are, and what really causes them (hint: not just “missed withholds” as most people think of them). Learn WHY you yell at ashtrays and use dolls in doll drills and why you NEED to get TR0 Bullbait flat (which DM obviously is not).

      And KSW means that as a supervisor running a course room, you run the course room and get the exact materials understood. Even if the student disagrees – make sure he duplicates what it is he is disagreeing with, and not some idea of it. I once again bring up R2-45. If you think R2-45 is a real process, you are waaay too literal to be a Scientologist. if you disagree with TR0-Bullbait, at least understand why it is you are doing it.

      The point is: Don’t Q&A with students. Get them through the training. Get them to learn this stuff. Handle their originations. Don’t accept that when they tell you “it didn’t work” that they did it right, and somehow they are the exception to the thousands of students who came before them and got the result. Some of this shit is HARD, man. Some people cannot duplicate, and some people cannot persist. Help them.

      But, this does NOT mean be rote or an asshole. It just means be a mentor – a guide – who helps the person over the bogs.

      Now, as to learning more – to me, life is learning. We should not be afraid of knowledge, even supposedly contradictory knowledge. I mean, look, physicists don’t know. They don’t have a “theory of everything” and what some of them are proposing (String theory, infinite universes) is really fantastic. Psychiatrists don’t know. They even put on the labels of their pills “We don’t know how this stuff works.” They can’t prevent mass murderers from mass murdering, even when they have them in their clutches. We are debating “gun control” instead of “Let’s cure insane people so they don’t want to kill 6 year olds.” They KNOW that is a lost cause – for them. This is not to put them down – this it to recognize that we are all passengers on this floating orb, and even fully trained and audited Scientologists still have a lot to learn. That is a GOOD thing – I can’t imagine being in a state of total Know.

      I personally find this fascinating, and it helps me live my life better. I think everyone should get their ARC SW, grades, etc. I also think everyone should get their Meyers/Briggs profile – interesting stuff, and helpful. And I think we all will be better off if we read “How to win friends and influence people” by Dale Carnegie.

      None of this stuff is contradictory – it is all in alignment. It really is. And it is fun to look at it and understand it.


      • Grasshopper, you’ve hit nails on the head all over the place with this last post as far as I’m concerned. I just have so much reality on the workability of LRH’s tech when it is correctly understood and applied, and not only auditing tech but admin and ethics tech as well. A real Scientologist uses auditing, ethics and admin tech to HELP. These are TOOLS Ron gave us. to help ourselves and others. The real issue here is purpose. To illustrate – hammer is a tool which can be used to put pieces of wood together to build a bookcase, or you can bash someones head in with it.. So, because you can kill someone with a hammer does that make all hammers bad? Well, some people who have been undeservedly affected by hammers to their heads could understandably have this viewpoint but they would be wrong targeting the hammer (tool) instead of the evil purp behind its usage. The tools of Scientology have done me a lot of good. That doesn’t mean that I can’t duplicate the mindset of those who have been severely harmed by the mis-use of Scientology for purposes other than to help, with intentions to control, subjugate and destroy. I weep inside when I read these stories and posts. The betrayal of trust, the crime of the misuse of Scientology’s tools – its just too huge, that’s all. I think all we can do is to just continue to flow ARC, to care for people as best we can, to use the tools of Scientology correctly, gently, as we can, as is possible, as we know how, with a pure and gentle purpose to simply help in some way but with no must-haves and no make wrongs. There would be no zealousness in this, just something we do that flows very naturally and appropriately. I believe that in this way the real message will communicate and be received. My 2 cents.

  36. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    Phantastic post Marty
    “Some, though they would be the last to admit it, obtain and exercise a feeling of superiority and a comfortable identity for having accomplished a high degree of competence in the skills of identification, association and differentiation. If the exercise of one’s skills are of sufficient value by way of their scarcity, more penetrating observation beyond them might seem a threat to the value of those skills of differentiation, identification and association and all that they garner”
    I can understand very welland its kind of a credo I have ” to never stop to ask myself questions and reevaluate everything continously !`

    Could somebody here please or Marty give a simple example about this concept of duality..all philosophers are talking about it but I don’t feel 100% sure to really grasp it ( 2 terminal universe ?).

    Thanks in advance !

    You are totally right Mankind is currently evolving with great strides ! We are on an adventure !🙂

  37. I read your post yesterday Marty, and have been savoring it ever since. I tried to think of a song or poem that could contribute to it. I could not find one that was “just right.” And then I remembered this quote.

    “So as you move from Clear to OT why, all additional automaticities and
    miraculous changes of state and that sort of thing, these come under your control and position, one right after the other. And you gradually get to a point where you could turn these things on and off, you see? You could be the storm or the sunset, you know? You would know what you were doing.” -LRH, from “OT and Clear Defined”
    A tape lecture of 29 November 1966

    The last two lines became my mantra as understanding dawned that there would be no joy and freedom as I had so long dreamed of in the Church I had loved for so many years.

    The Buddhists have a term, “taking refuge.” The three refuges are refuge in the Bhuddha, refuge in the Dharma, refuge in the Sangha.

    The original Pali words of the three “I take refuge” lines, translated literally, read “I will undertake to find my home in the Buddha,” and then the Dharma and Sangha.

    Refuge in the Buddha: Accepting the guidance of Buddhas, of enlightened beings for inspiration, contemplation and emulation. Ultimately we are our own refuge.

    Refuge in the Dharma: the wisdom that understands our own true nature and reveals our own latent power of self-liberation. True Dharma or religion is a personal experience that each of us must elicit from within ourselves alone.

    Refuge in the Sangha: True spiritual friends support one another in their practice and promote each other’s growth in knowledge and awareness. These spiritual friends energise and inspire us and are therefore to be clearly distinguished from ordinary friends who hold us back.

    Thank you to all who post here for Sangha.
    Thank you for refuge, Marty.
    Thank you all.

  38. And I finally found a song on YouTube that contributes:

  39. This universe does have some basic laws. Those are needed and had been created to enable the universe to exist. Theta has also some basic laws. But they can be changed. Or theta can decide to break those laws. Except one: theta cannot as-is itself. Theta exists. As theta exists without time there is no as-isness. As-isness requires time or persistence first and the as-isness to end the existence of that which did persist before.
    Within the viewpoint of this universe with time and persistence Theta or a Being had not been created. As creation requires the concept of time.
    But using the concepts and words of this universe I can say that I have been created. Furthermore I can say that I am me. Not someone else and not part of something bigger like a drop of water in a glass of water.
    It does not matter if I am a single identity or separate. As separation requires distance. Outside of the universe is no distance. This is a this universe concept. But without distance I am still separate.
    I am not different in terms of this ball of theta is me and you are that ball of theta over there. Looking at that situation with this unverse terms one could say, that outside of this uinverse we are all one thus one identity.
    But without distance I am still me and not you. We would have to communicate without words and this universe concepts to further discuss this.

  40. mantis…+1
    Marty, thank you for this post

  41. Nice,

    Inevitably pointing up.


  42. I had similar cognitions when moving from Scientology to Buddhism.

    About the identification, differentiation, association processes, I believe that they come from the finite nature of the human mind.

    The human mind is a finite system that has to deal with an infinite universe. It could be compared to a computer with a limited amount of processing power and a limited amount of memory.

    By looking at the inner details of human perceptions, we can see how well they are optimized in terms of sparing computing resources. For example the senses of sight and hearing use efficient data compression techniques.

    How to represent the infinite in a finite system? The most economical way is identification, but it is also the worse. The reactive mind is using identification as it is using less computing power and has faster responses, but identification introduces a lot of errors in the system.

    Association is better in terms of accuracy. It allows representing an infinite number of objects with just one symbol. For example I am sitting on a chair that is a symbol, as I don’t even know the matter it is made of. I have condensed billions of chairs in just one abstract model. That is enough if my purpose is just to sit down.

    Differentiation helps being not trapped by false identifications or associations, but is using more computing power.

    Identification, association, differentiation help building better models of the universe, but our mental models, even when sophisticated, are but poor copies of the real thing. We can just try to improve our approximations.

    Now Marty is talking about knowing the universe without using the limited mind, I am not up to that level currently.

  43. OK… I’ll play…

    The Factors are postulates put forward by L. Ron Hubbard. They may or may not be true, but I find them interesting philosophically.

    “Factor #1: Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.”

    This suggests that “the creation of effect” is/was the “Q” of the Cause. This may or may not be true, but if one conceives it to be true, then one might consider that “the creation of effect” was more desirable to Cause than the situation Cause was experiencing just before that. It could be considered an advancement, and everything that follows is basically that purpose being realized.

    “Factor #2: In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is TO BE.”

    So… That pretty much suggests that until time itself ceases to exist (the only conceivable end for “forever”) “BE-ing” is apparently a main factor in the achievement of Cause’s purpose. It seems to be part of the “Plan” of Cause’s Admin Scale, in order to forward the purpose of “the creation of effect”.

    “Factor #3: The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint.”t

    There is that pesky “viewpoint” thing.

    “Factor #4: The second action of beingness is to extend from the viewpoint, points to view, which are dimension points.”

    And here you have “duality” entered into the mix.
    This is where “confront” enters into the picture. Confront is actually the ability to be “other than”. (What you are not confronting you are being.) To hold a viewpoint separate from…

    From there on, the game is created, and played.

    There is nothing in there that suggests that there would be such a thing as “good” effects ,or “bad” effects, simply “the creation of effect”.

    So that leads me to consider that the purpose of auditing would best NOT be to rid oneself of “bad” effects or “unwanted conditions”, but rather to enable the being to “be willing to experience ANYTHING. That would seem to put the being “back on purpose”.

    So… this concept of returning to “static” or “Cause” (as in the first Factor) would seem to be a step backwards to me. To actually achieve it one would seemingly need to be willing and able to dispense with the entirety of what has happened since. I mean a TOTAL UNMOCK. Not very appealing to me at this point, for somewhere deep down I still harbor the purpose of ” creating an effect”.

    “Can one have it both ways?

    You are still the Cause of the original purpose. You are the creator of the life that you live.

    You ARE the Alpha AND the Omega.

    Eric S

    • Roger from Switzerland Thought


    • ERIC
      “So that leads me to consider that the purpose of auditing would best NOT be to rid oneself of “bad” effects or “unwanted conditions”, but rather to enable the being to “be willing to experience ANYTHING. That would seem to put the being “back on purpose”.

      Like what you posted.🙂

      This statement above seems to be an avenue to OT. Whatever that might be.

      ” 2 rules for happy living:-

      “1. Be able to experience anything.
      “2. Cause only those things which others are able to experience easily.”
      LRH [FOT?]

      I consider the above abilities which gradiently or otherwise lead to OT abilities to be very important. You have them you have treasure. And they imply ability to grant beingness. Greater treasure.

      • Terril


        Here is another look that I had regarding “erasing” incidents that aligns with this.

        When I look at what happens when one views something on his/her track, and the “charge blows”, I do not consider that anything has “erased” at all. By my way of thinking, what one has done is to view the area of fixatedness until one gains the ability to have, or not have it, – create or not create it, at will. One takes responsibility for its creation, and the COMPULSIVE create becomes ELECTIVE create. One ceases to resist (resisting being the source of the charge) and the charge that was being continually created dissipates. There is no longer any charge connected to it when one views it, because the being is now willing to experience it. The incident does not “move” to some other “bank” or facsimile repository. One simply has gained the ability to only CREATE it if and when he/she wants to.

        I would guess that if one is holding any kind of facsimile, in ANY KIND of repository, he would need to be continually supplying it with energy to keep it created. He is to that degree “fixated” on it (seemingly benign facsimile or not), because he would be running a “must-have” on it. When he is truly able to experience having, or not-having it, only then is he free to create it, or not create it, at will.

        I consider, at some point, as a being exteriorizes more and more from the fixatednesses associated with facsimiles, facsimiles of all types would eventually become totally redundant to that being.

        Eric S

        • Thanks Eric. I hadn’t really looked at it that way. It is Create-Create-Create – Cease creating.

          As-isness could then be the recognition that one is creating on automatic. One then does not “destroy”anything, one just ceases creating it.

  44. There is an exercise in The Power of Now where Tolle has one observe physical objects without labelling them as say a chair, or wall or whatever. You take a break from differentiating. Instead one observes their beingness, their existence, that they are. I had some wins from it. The philosophical question ‘why is there something rather than nothing’ has a similar effect on me.

  45. Spiritual people often want unconditional support and understanding from their friends, family, and mates, but all too often seem blind to their own shortcomings when it comes to the amount of unconditional support and understanding that they give to others. I have seen many spiritual people become obsessed with how unspiritual others are and assume an arrogant and superior attitude while completely missing the fact that they themselves are not nearly as spiritually enlightened as they would like to think they are.

    Enlightenment can be measured by how compassionately and wisely you interact with others—with all others, not just those who support you in the way that you want. How you interact with those who do not support you shows how enlightened you really are.

    As long as you perceive that anyone is holding you back, you have not taken full responsibility for your own liberation. Liberation means that you stand free of making demands on others and life to make you happy. When you discover yourself to be nothing but Freedom, you stop setting up conditions and requirements that need to be satisfied in order for you to be happy.

    It is in the absolute surrender of all conditions and requirements that Liberation is discovered to be who and what you are. Then the love and wisdom that flows out of you has a liberating effect on others. The biggest challenge for most spiritual seekers is to surrender their self importance, and see the emptiness of their own personal story. It is your personal story that you need to awaken from in order to be free.

    To give up being either ignorant or enlightened is the mark of liberation and allows you to treat others as your Self. What I am describing is the birth of true Love.


  46. I really like this blog post Marty. It was if you came into my lane and joined me. For an instant, it was a surprise…then I remembered that on this journey through time and space there is nothing random. One cannot but be in the right place at the right time.

    I suspect that Theta is a pure nondualism. Assuming that this is a fact, this would mean that there is absolutely no symbol originating from an existence of dualism that could accurately describe or convey the state of Theta. Nondualism and dualism are irreconcilable. And, because we appear to be firmly fixated in an existence of dualism, we cannot truly conceive of Theta. Yet we somehow know it. It calls to us. Indeed, it never stops calling to us.

    What are some symbols that we could use to describe Theta? Here’s a few that I resonate to: Knowledge, Creation, Changeless, Perfection, non-Conscious, Oneness, the Always Is, Eternal, Joy, Love, Everything. Personally, even though I can assemble these words around Theta, I cannot begin to get my wits around the true meaning of these concepts with regard to Theta.

    If it is a truth that Theta is pure infinite Oneness and it is Everything, then nothing could exist outside of it. If something existed outside of Theta, then it would cease to be a Oneness and be a Twoness. Therefore, it would follow, that the dualism we appear to exist in cannot be anything but a grand illusion where Theta and enTheta exist opposite of one another. And, again, if Theta is what I suspect it is, both the Theta and the enTheta in the dualism would be illusory.

    If Theta is actually Everything it would have no need for such things as differentiation, identification, association, levels, layers, hierarchies, categories, classes, dimensions, frequencies, wavelengths or degrees. It would also have no need for inspection, evaluation, judgement, labels, analysis, policies, rules, laws, regulations, reports or findings. All these components would belong to and be necessary for enTheta to perpetuate itself.

    Scientology was never meant or intended to teach anyone anything. It’s fundamental aim was to help us remember what it was we were doing before we forgot what we were doing. I suspect that the actual “Bridge” that LRH knew was there slumbering within each one of us, was our memory of Pure nondualism Theta. In other words, the actual ‘Bridge’ was and is a bridge of content not form. The form is just there to assist us in locating that ‘Bridge.’ But, we are terrified of losing our identity, our individuality our “game.” We don’t want to let go of our nightmarish illusion. Speaking of individuality…note the last four syllables of the word.

    • I many times refer people to PAB 86 ‘Causation and Knowldege’ to REorient them to what the subject is all about. In it LRH writes:
      ‘Scientology, of all the sciences, does not teach you, it only reminds you, for the information was yours in the first place.’ He concludes the PAB with this: ‘The end object of Scientology is not the making into nothing of all of existence or the freeing of the individual of any and all traps everywhere. The goal of Scientology is making the individual capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with his fellows and the playing of a better game.’

      • Dn was the book that I read that introduced me to LRH and got me to the front door of the COS. Once in, the first book I read was FOT. If my house symbolized my universe and the furnishings within my perspectives, FOT was my new interior designer. PAB 86 is Chapter Eight in FOT and the last paragraph in that chapter (part of what you quoted) served as my standard description of Scn to the uninformed.

      • Thanks for the REorientation.

    • “But, we are terrified of losing our identity.”

      That is why it is always good to mock up an Identity you are better off with out. VUP, (Very Unimportant People) , you, and everyone that knows you can be very indifferent about and they carry very little charge. You can flow the V.I.P. (Very Important People) all your power and bawl over them when they kick off. 🙂

      • Thanks your for that oracle. The perspective you shared is both funny and useful. It brings to mind judgments, using many words all with the prefix ‘dis’, that are commonly used by the public in general when speaking of a homeless person. Homeless individuals are usually perceived as “VUPs” but perhaps that identity, in some cases, was a knowing decision in order to explore a path of enlightenment void of so many illusory trappings. Personally, I have met some incredibly enlightened homeless people.

  47. I recommend full listening of the lecture “Identity” of 6 Jan 1960. I am listening to it since a week again and again. And it gets better each time. LRH talks about the mechanism of “Identity” and what it does to a being.
    In my words: Identity is a method to shrink your own beingness. (as well as responsibility and memories etc.)
    Also I recommend is the Data Series Evaluators Course, especially the one from 1990.

    • It all depends on purpose. Really, I don’t have an identity for beingness. I have an identity so I can view from it. It’s like taking a train ride and looking out the window. Of course, these are the kind of comments I made before I was ordered to do the purif.

  48. To: Tony and others who might think this esoteric essay of Marty’s “jibberish” or not in simple terms, I disagree:

    NOT because I’m in the slightest smarter by far but because the words and concepts are extremely familiar to me. I’ve been studying this type of thought for more than 15 years.

    In 2007 – Rumi – born in 1207 – Persian theologian, mystic and poet was considered the favorite poet of Americans. There are Rumi calendars every year at all the major bookstores, for example.

    If you want to read beautiful poems that will stretch your own “brain cells” and give you a rather easy way to become familiar with the concepts of duality and oneness – I personally cannot find a better way.

    And then you can whisper Rumi quotes into your partners ear – or quote them at dinner and impress the crowd🙂

    Honestly, it’s all about “number of times over the material”, familiarity and different voices saying basically the same thing.

    Marty is unique as the only voice to my knowledge who speaks this age old wisdom through the lens of Scientology –

    (which is NOT saying he changes Scientology to fit age old wisdoms)


  49. When I first got into Scientology over 40 years ago, I was enthralled by the conversations I would participate in that were unlike any I had experienced for quite a long time. Coming from the streets of Brooklyn, I had been hard-pressed to find terminals who wanted to discuss anything beyond sports, drugs & sex. Talking about philosophy or the true meaning of life, got one long stares and a slap on the back of the head for being irrelevant.

    Both those I met in California back then were engaged in a quest. They wanted to know about life and what was behind it. They were excited about Scientology and what it portended – it was opening up avenues of discussion that were generally not available to the Average Joe. It sucked me right in!

    As the years passed, I became more of a Scientologist, more of a philosopher and ironically had less and less opportunity to use what I knew to open up new lines of discussion; new frontiers to poke ones nose into.

    Fast forward those forty years and I found myself even further afield, a highly trained and processed OT who was surrounded by people claiming to be free thinkers but who were in fact, closed off and unapproachable. After all those years I was even more alone than when I started.

    About that time, my wife turned me on to this blog and I started reading it. I immediately began experiencing emotional, philosophic and spiritual “train wrecks” on a regular basis as ideas of all sorts were colliding with the realities of those on the blog. Beneficial collisions for the most part, with the resulting detritus of most calamities strewn across my own personal landscape. Old ideas shattered, old perceptions proven out of date. Old beliefs trampled upon by truth & reality that I was hard-pressed to ignore.

    The world of great conversation and willingness to experience actual change that I had pined for was alive and well, only in a slightly different location.

    Over the last month I have found the posts and resulting comments to be refreshing and very hopeful. In the past I would often find myself in conflict with other Scientologists who refused to or perhaps were unable to, see that Scientology and it’s philosophy and technology was like the bow of an Icebreaker, allowing entry into unchartered waters by those huddled behind it. SCN helps create the space needed for new thoughts and ideas to flow into. It makes life better. Most that I opposed thought it was life and that nothing else was required. (Sigh!)

    Anyway, thank you for the posts, the willingness to post, the willingness and desire to change, even if that change sometimes means starting from scratch.

    Odd Thomas

  50. Alan Watts here describes game theory and how to transcend it subjectively without transcending games “objectively”, in a way which makes me want to go read more of what Ron has to say about the subject.

    So I thought I’d share it, because an important part of games theory finally reached me, and it was a big F/N for sure.
    I can’t vouch for all that he says in the lecture because I was half listening and half doing something else, but it’s an interesting lecture. Tony I read what you said about discarding ideas that aren’t communicated simply and I’m the same way; I think you’d like this.

    • If the link doesn’t go through just google for the video:
      “alan watts – the power the kindom and the glory”

    • Nevermind this video, I don’t like Alan Watts anymore, and it seems like he’s making it all up as he goes. He keeps talking about how no spiritual progress can be made and the ying and the yang blah blah blah and it’s kind of depressing to hear that over and over again.

  51. “Learning the art and honing the skills of differentiation, identification and association increases accuracy of observation. It increases intelligence. It increases ability. L. Ron Hubbard aptly defined the application of those skills as sanity.”

    Hi. Marty.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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