The Tao of Physics

Scientology technology is powerful  in lifting an individual from being effect up to being more at cause.

In accomplishing that Scientology focuses heavily on, and makes great use of,  Newtonian classic physics  principles.  Unfortunately, ultimately that world view tends to lock a Scientologist under a glass ceiling of sorts to further transcendence of awareness and qualities of equanimity.

Evaluated against the very axioms (including The Factors and Logics) Scientology is predicated upon one could easily reckon that to be the case.  Paradoxically, Scientology contains laws of interpretation that make one of its own Logics, critical to growth and transcendence, forbidden practice:

Logic 8:  A Datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.

Thus, the first comprehensive fusion of Eastern thought with Western science ultimately disallowed study of either in the continuing search for truth and higher levels of consciousness.

A very good primer for a) evaluating what is valuable about one’s Scientology experience and what about Scientology makes it so effective, and b) beginning the process of transcending  from where Scientology might leave one in terms of consciousness, is the book The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra (recommended to me by the irrepressible Scott Campbell).

Even though the book was first published in 1975, and it has been followed by dozens of authors treading similar ground of analyzing breakthroughs in sub atomic physics to Eastern wisdom and consciousness, I have found it to be the most thorough, layman-friendly piece on the subject to date.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who has experienced Scientology.   Most particularly to those who have completed the Scientology OT Levels, started the Scientology OT Levels, or who have any intention of pursuing them in the future.  It will provide vital context for your experience.   It might help prevent you from becoming fixated, and set up for a big lose, on the quest for total causation.  And it might help to take you to higher levels of consciousness not contemplated or permitted in Scientology (even through consequent practice of Scientology techniques).

As I have noted before, I believe that it is essential to the transcendence of Scientology to rise above the fixation on attaining to the permanent state of causation.  The fixation can ultimately result in a painful state of effect or an arrogant state of hallucinatory cause.  In either event, it parks one in any quest for continuing transcendence to higher states of being.

Here is an excerpt from the Tao of Physics that gives a brief description how the confluence of Eastern wisdom and Western science supports that view:

Many of the Eastern teachers emphasize that thought must take place in time, but that vision can transcend it.  ‘Vision’, says Govinda, ‘is bound up with a space of a higher dimension, and therefore timeless.’  The space-time of relativistic physics is a similar timeless space of a higher dimension.  All events in it are interconnected, but the connections are not causal.  Particle interactions can be interpreted in terms of cause and effect only when the space-time diagrams are read in a definite direction, e.g. from the bottom to the top (note: space-time diagrams are explained earlier in the book). When they are taken as four-dimensional patterns without any definite direction of time attached to them, there is no ‘before’ and no ‘after’, and thus no causation.

Similarly, the Eastern mystics assert that in transcending time, they also transcend the world of cause and effect.  Like our ordinary notions of space and time, causation is an idea which is limited to a certain experience of the world and has to be abandoned when this experience is extended.  In the words of Swami Vivekananda,

 Time, space and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen…In the Absolute there is neither time, space nor causation.

The Eastern spiritual traditions show their followers various ways of going beyond the ordinary experience of time and of freeing themselves from the chain of cause and effect – from the bondage of karma, as the Hindus and Buddhists say.  It has therefore been said that Eastern mysticism is a liberation from time.  In a way the same may be said of relativistic physics.

251 responses to “The Tao of Physics

  1. I wouldn’t accept a philosophical approach that suggests transcending Scientology. Scientology is the only philosophic practice built upon a set of Logics and Axioms. If Scientology could be transcended then there is an error in its basics i.e. in the Logics and/or the Axioms. As you have said there is a lot of baggage associated with the practice of Scientology. After taking that out of the equation what is left is a workable technology. Given the wealth of material available I really can’t see running out of things to audit for quite a few lifetimes.

    • The problem with your approach is that by firm policy any alteration in advancement is by definition not Scientology.

      • Marty, in 1951, at the highest level in the Reality column of the Chart of Human Evaluation, LRH wrote this:

        “Search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality. Changes reality” (Science of Survival)

        The later developments in policy is the reason I usually differentiate what I mean by “Scientology as a subject” with such modifiers as “core” or “early”, as I consider the philosophy and tech as distinguishable (even though perhaps not without some difficulty) from admin tech or management. I don’t think you should write without including that differentiation by at least noting that the two subjects are different That would keep things from being out-R and confusing for some readers, IMHO.

        • martyrathbun09

          I have attempted to make that differntiation for four years now and about all it has seemed to garner is consternation and condemnation in the name of ‘Scientology’ from multiple corners. I am moving on. Appealing to self-imposed ignorance has hit the point of diminishing returns.

          • Oh wow. I get it. You are basically speaking to the R that is in fact there – without diminishing anything about the potential of basic Scientology – and writing your posts in that frame of reference. And thus you hope to better communicate! Am I right?

          • It’s a good point Marty. Scientology technology and its sub-study Dianetics BOTH produce remarkable and in many cases LASTING result when applied correctly. One rule stands clear. If Dianetics and Scientology do not produce a result then it is not Dianetics and Scientology that is being applied. With that said, looking on a little further there are ways to expand one’s abilities even further without implicating “bad tech” being involved. I have noticed over the last few years you do QUITE a bit of reading of other viewpoints and “Tao’s”. There are ways. But, one has to say within the reality of people’s reality around one. For example, Karen De La Carriere and I are both vegans (advanced vegetarians). When most people hear this they say “What?”🙂

            • Lawrence, not only are we far healthier than meat eaters, we are far more
              *enlightened” and “advanced. 🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂
              Further we are RIGHT
              Others are WRONG 8) 8) 8) 8)

          • Thank you (and Scott) for the book recommendation. I look at all this simplistically. One can start by learning and applying what LRH laid out to self and others, but when the breadcrumbs end, per the concept of knowing how to know, one embarks on a personal journey. Scientology serves as a a big stepping stone for that purpose.

          • Marty – thank you for this post. You are moving in the right direction and I appreciate the homework you are doing! Good job! Excellent points!

        • Marildi,

          “Marty, in 1951, at the highest level in the Reality column of the Chart of Human Evaluation, LRH wrote this:

          “Search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality. Changes reality” (Science of Survival)”

          Thanks for reminding people that Hubbard considered “Search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality. Changes reality” a QUALITY. A very high toned QUALITY.

          NOT deviant behavior, as has been so wrongly misplaced and laid on the table as a wrong item and wrong indication.

        • one of those who see

          “Search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality. Changes reality” (Science of Survival) – Excellent to point this out Marildi!

      • In my opinion, this alteration has already been made. To be more specific, what is the relative causativeness that is to be attained by doing the (NEW) OT levels and what is the causativeness that LRH described in his non confidential OT materials?

      • Marty ~~
        This is a very very good forum of discussion.
        I am enjoying *lurking* and following it all.
        Well worth reading….

    • Ralph, Scientology is not the only philosophic practice built upon a set of logics and axioms.

      George E. Burnell’s teachings were based on the “Axioms of Reason.” George lectured publicly in Arcadia, California up until the mid 1940s and sold many copies of his manuscripts. Ernest Holmes drew on and cites Burnell’s axioms in his own own works. Holmes is the founder of Religious Science. http://www.qm21.com/axioms.html

      2,000 years ago, Patanjali taught the The Yoga Aphorisms. They were translated into English by a Theosophist in 1889.

      True axioms are: “statements that we cannot deny without using them in our denial. Axioms are the foundation of all knowledge. There are only a few axioms that have been identified. These are: Existence Exists, The Law of Identity, and Consciousness.”

      Most other axioms are actually postulates, such as Euclidean geometry. An axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths.
      http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Axiom.html

      The axioms and logics are the basis for the philosophy and technology of Scientology, and are not true axioms. They are workable axioms based mostly on heuristic reasoning and synthesis/organization of many earlier existing works. The work he did on them is truly extraordinary, as are the many techniques developed by their application. But they are definitely not the be-all and end-all for all systems and all analysis in the realm of spirituality, philosophy, science or religion.

      • I see I forgot the link for Patanjali:
        http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/patanjal/patan-hp.htm

        And for both the links, the 1913 dictionary is critical to understanding. In the area of philosophy, religion and psychology there have been major shifts in the meaning of words.

        http://1913.mshaffer.com/d/browse/letter,c

        • Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras were written by Patanjali for teachers to comment on. Sutra means string. The beads to the string are to be put together by the preceptor. In other words Patanjali wrote very short aphorisms that are extremely powerful. It is considered a compilation and codification of the entire science of yoga. It’s theory, procedures, practices and attainments.

          So you will get many commentaries from different teachers. My favorite is the translation and commentary by Swami Prabhavanada and Christopher Isherwood for those interested.

      • Thank you Maria, once again. I love how you put it all in context. When it comes to such material as the Factors of scientology, it seems you place them as postulates as well, along with the Greek teachings on form, existence and mathematics. If I understand you correctly, your saying all of the above give us a workable system to understand with, a stable datum, but they may not necessarily be the last word. They are just as far as our understanding has taken us. But since our understanding is all we have to work with, whether they are pure axioms or not, we need to use them. Placing it all in context is appreciated. As is Marildi’s reference to the 1951 chart of Human Evaluation where at the top LRH places a being who is continuing to seek out differing viewpoints to broaden and even change their own reality. As oppossed to the churchs prison of beliefs and ideas. At the top of the Chart is how I see the thrust of this blog. Not a bad place to be. Thanks again.

        • Yes, that is what I am saying. Dianetics was developed using an engineering approach, which is heuristic. Does it work? Yes. Why does it work? Does it fail? Yes. Try again. Try another approach. Try again. It works on this basis? Possibly. Try again. How about this idea? Does it work? No. Try again. And again. Closer and closer to something that works.

          This is the only possible approach you can take to a complex system like a human being. You take that complex system apart to study it and you no longer have a human being, you have a dead human being or a fanciful / limited model of a human being.

          In the case of the sciences to do with mind and spirit it gets pretty wild, after all, you are asking living beings that are complex systems questions and then working out what questions to ask and asking them how they are doing now, looking for common denominators and active principles that could be agencies for beneficial change. You can never truly control the environment and all the variables that produce that system, you can only look for large enough changes to allow you to pursue larger changes.

          In heuristics you have to always keep in mind: works to do what and under what circumstances? With Dianetics it was trying to find a way to address irrationality, destructive and non-survival behavior = a well and happy human being that is rational, constructive and succeeding on survival goals.

          Compare to the computer sciences, which are also heuristic. With each new iteration, there is greater efficiency, facility and application. That is the engineering approach. It is trial and error, extract a principle, trial and error, extract a principle, repeat, repeat, repeat.

          The laptop works, but the science used to develop the applications were not particularly arrived at by deduction. It too has its postulates, definitions and axioms, but they are not true axioms. However, if you violate them, the laptop will not work as expected.

          Will the postulates and rules underlying laptops work for building houses? Nope. You need a different set of postulates and definitions for building houses. That doesn’t mean that the laptop building set is wrong.

          • Maria, I really marvel at the intelligence in your posts. That is not exaggeration. But I heard something frightening today. I just wanted to share. Someone I spoke to in the Freezone said that around the year 2015 people on Earth may all be implanted with electronic computer chips to monitor and control them physically. Today, President Obama revealed his over $100,000,000.00 million dollar budget push to get “brain mapping research on the road”. Will Sea Org members be included in this chipping process? Is this someone’s Tao?

            The story is here:
            http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2013/04/02/obama-brain-initiative/2046935/

            • martyrathbun09

              Are you serious? If so, very timely as I am about to post on Scientology fundamentalist, regressive fights against scientific advances.

              • Marty, correct me if I am wrong, but I hardly consider putting electronic chips in PC’s heads scientific advancement!🙂 Post your article. It will be understood.

                • martyrathbun09

                  Making a paralyzed body work that did not before is not an advacement? That is what your link gave as example of application.

                  • I agree. I have also noted the way helpful technology in the hands of some people can sometimes be used to cause more harm than good. As in the case of the Church of Scientology. I am not saying it is a fact, but I did get from a woman in the Freezone that in the near future chip implanting in people may become a reality around the 2015 to “keep them under control” or in comparison to what you noted from the article “get them to function correctly again”. I didn’t say it happened (it is not 2015 yet!🙂 ) but no I do not think it is a bad idea at all in the case of stroke victims that are often paralyzed from their illness.🙂

                  • And you think they’ll leave it at that?
                    I wonder if you’ve ever researched the initiation of this project.

                    Once again, LRH was more than half a century before his time.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Do tell us in brief, but with links to proofs, the initiation of this project.

                    • Marty, just follow the money channels.
                      Really, there is no intent by me to include any of the “conspiracy theories” on your blog.
                      Make your own research and apply what you’ve learned.
                      I’ll find myself a steel lined bunker and you can keep your pink glasses on your nose. Or maybe we will simply see trough it and act properly.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Have fun in the past.

                    • Marty, I wonder how any of your invalidations is usefull here.

              • Oh advances? And what did you learn from the past about scientific advances?
                What do you think this technology will be used for?
                You really like to be located in spacetime 24/7?
                Have you ever read “History of Man”? or are you simply applying:
                Tell people who want to invalidate all this, “Your criticism is very just. It’s only fantasy.”?

            • Hello Lawrence,
              I found this quote in “History of Man”:

              “There is nothing as wild in the books of Man as will probably happen here on Earth. And it will happen and be allowed to happen simply because all this is so incredible that nobody will even think of stopping it until it is far, far too late. Its incredibility is its best safeguard, so you needn’t bother to convince anybody who doesn’t want to believe it.”

              One of the “battles” of LRH was to inhibit exactly this to happen.
              The use of electronics to monitor and control beings.

              • On a brighter note, you know what? Tory Christman has over 10,000 subscribers to her You Tube channel. That is a lot of people reading the internet about the truth about the Church of Scientology. Even I have learned things from Tory’s channel, just like I learned things in the Church of Scientology. Recently I asked myself a question “What has the Church of Scientology done to me that I would like to learn how to do to them?” The answer NOTHING. For me, that is the Way to Happiness. I can live with it, because it is the truth and it makes me happy. So do I need the HRD for $25,000.00? I don’t think so!🙂 The “History of Man” by L. Ron Hubbard is a good book too, just like some of the one’s Marty reads and promotes on this blog. I might not know of these things if Marty had not spoken up. Just yesterday I got another e-mail from another Sea Org that has left, for good, but she didn’t blow, she wised up and left. I intend to invite her to my home for apple pie!🙂

                • Thanks.
                  I read everything of interest to me. I was a spiritual seeker since I was a kid. As long as I remember. I am glad I was part of the Church of Scientology, I am glad I found it, and I am glad I left the Church.
                  I was interested in the spiritual aspects of Scientology and my favorite Scientology “scripture” is from 1951 – 1962.
                  I don’t like the DMSMH (Book 1 – I think it was much PR in there, too many unchecked postulates). But I love Since of Survival and all the books thereafter (DN55! is one of my favorites).
                  I read lots of philosophy and religion. I always did, even in the church. There is nothing more important than collecting viewpoints. Scientology is a route for me, a tool to see what is true for myself. That’s why I left the Church. It wasn’t suitable on my own road to truth anymore.

                  It’s good to know more and more people leave. They do.
                  Invite and invite your friend.
                  I wish you both bon appétit!

                  • Do not underestimate the power of just DMSMH paperback book tech. People have cleared each other in their dens auditing each other with nothing more than a copy of DMSMH on the table as far back as the 1950’s.🙂

      • Thanks for the referneces Maria. Theosophy is a bit too detached for me. I find it very heavy reading material.

        • Ralph neither of the references are theosophy. The one is New Thought and the other is Yoga. The Yoga materials were translated by a fellow who was a theosophist, but the materials themselves are over 2,000 years old.

      • Maria,

        Very nice links, thank you. Requires an attention span (which you’ve pretty obviously got a LOT of), but looks like they’re worth it. I get what you yourself are saying, as regards engineering and developing a science, but would it be false to say that the axioms, postulates, or mechanisms and functionings of computers and houses are miscible at a level of the Factors of Scn, as are many other fields? I.e. what LRH did is isolate and define the fundamentals, the effects of Cause, if you will. Or am I being over-fundamental?

        Just commenting on the notions of no-time and no-cause, are those not a condition of existence of as-is-ness? If one admits to the possibility of an as-is-ness (axiomatic), then one admits to causality (either coming, or going). If I understand the hypotheses of no-time and no-cause, one aims to move towards a state above MEST, which is OK, but in that state, if there is no causality (e.g. if all the past is not), then there is no cause, and there is nothing to know, and thus, no being. It’s an oxymoron, really, to have no cause in an as-is-ness, but the fact of no creation is enough to disinterest me. It all makes for interesting conversation or consideration, and indeed a being can consider such, but so can a being consider a lot of other things (and who has never had a real, live, teddy bear?).

        On the other side of it, a state of total causation is something the Co$ may have cooked up to describe something or another, but I don’t aim for that. Not to try to imitate people smarter than me over on WWP, but … “Whuuut??” Total cause is no game – or maybe someone who actually understands “games conditions” can relate it to that.

        Just friends conversing,
        Words tranquil
        Over the lawn
        Like evening’s fireflies.

        Carcha.

        • Carcha

          I am with you on this. I have no real interest in no causation, at this point. If one is creating their Dynamics in an optimum manner, in their own estimation, then everything would be optimum. Sure there are potentially limits (or perhaps a lack of no limits) but those “limits” would seem to be virtually Infinite in all one’s experiences.

          To me, If one is experiencing as much fun as they can stand, and having just the exact right amount of cause and effect to keep the whole thing entertaining, I think that would be a place one could experience for some time.

          To be other than any cause or effect, to be all potential and no action or experience, wouldn’t even be boring… it simply wouldn’t BE at all.

          Sure, I look at this universe in this universe’s terms, as I can actually conceive of no others at this point, but when one is considering no looking, no universe, and no terms….

          Hmmm… No interest…

          Eric S

          • Eric – Yes, cause AND effect. And your description of “… creating their Dynamics in an optimum manner, in their own estimation …” seems to be a good description of ethics. One must be responsible for what one causes, it seems to me, good or bad, either way. Causelessness just isn’t consistent with as-is-ness. Reading some of the conversations below is scary … I had a flash of what would happen if these guys as-is something big in a moment of physicist’s inspiration. – Carcha.

        • Guys, the point of what I posted was to dispel the incorrect notion that there are no other philosophic systems based on axioms. I posted the links as dox and the info on axioms and postulates to demonstrate that a set of axioms can work perfectly in a particular system and support a workable method, yet fail outside of that use and method.

          i.e. relativity vs. classical Newtonian physics — Newton’s axioms were disproved but in reality they are still valid in classical physics and are in constant use in engineering applications.

          The links I provided take some pretty intensive study — I put them up for any who might want to explore them or add them to their library/fund of knowledge.

          As far as the discussion about cause and effect, it seems to me that you both are talking about playing a game and being happy with doing that! I say why not? As you say, until something better is created or comes into view, might as well have the best possible experience available!

          I do think that where a problem can enter is when Scn materials are said to be the only right way and only right information etc. But since I’ve read many posts you’ve both made many times, that would be preaching to the choir anyway!

  2. It does seem self-evident that the more foundational any datum is, the broader its application to the worlds, both physical and spiritual.

    A datum is not senior to life, lest it limit the life-unit that considers it so. Thus: Integrative, not static and unchanging; inclusive, not isolationist; embrasive, not defensive. Being both an entire universe, whole and complete, while simultaneously being a part of a larger whole.

  3. Not at all. I’m not interested in the baggage associated with Scientology. In that category I include many policies. What I am saying is that if there is a flaw in the tech then it must be traced to its roots in the Logics and Axioms.
    I still remember my first visit to Saint Hill back in 1971. A friend and I hitch hiked to the Mecca. We asked if there was a place to stay overnight and the friendly housing officer found us a place to stay. We talked into the small hours with the people at the house where we stayed. A year later I arrived at the Flagship Apollo to find something very disparate.
    ARC was superceded by KRC and Make it Go Right!
    But that was baggage not Scientology.
    I don’t know if you were involved early enough to see the way the later destroved missions were in the 70s. Alan Walter’s mission had hundreds of students on basic courses. I visited it and saw the wins.
    When I visited Santa Clara there were over 50 students in the HSDC courseroom.
    The money from those people mostly went to sending mission staff to Flag for training and auditing. DM and Co cooked the Golden Goose when they destroyed the mission network and Scientology has not recovered.
    If you want to know what an ideal org looks like then go back to Orange County in 1978.
    If you wish to transcend Scientology then please point out the flaws in its very detailed structure of Logics and Axioms. Which Axiom is incorrect and how?

    • martyrathbun09

      You are a living demo of what this post is about.

      • Did my post go through?

        • martyrathbun09

          No. You need to either read Scientology books, my book, or the books I recommended so that you can contribute something other than natter about personalities to this forum. We are going to try to keep it to intelligent discussion here.

        • Chris, One thing you may want to consider in your purposes for posting on the Internet:

          Sanity: 7. “The measure of how ably an individual assists things which assist survival, and inhibits things which inhibit survival.” L.R.H.

          It is very clear, black / white , that Marty assist things which assist survival.

          As testy and op termy and gamey as it can be fun to be, why does it make any reason to continually effort at inhibiting things that assist survival?

          In fact, when you do that, you are working to inhibit things which assist survival.

          Consider the fact that this can be related to physical function / condition as well.

          When a body begins to harvest elements that inhibit it’s survival , such as virus’s etc., and then inhibit things which assist survival, such immunities nutrients and healthy blood cells, a person can sick and even die.

    • It looks like Marty’s interpretation of “transcend Scientology” is going higher than what strictly LRH developed.

      Ralph Hilton’s interpretation of “transcend Scientology” is improving on the Logics and Axioms of Scn as developed by LRH.

      Ralph Hilton has been solo-auditing uncharted territory: incidents which happened in different universes previous to the one we are right now (including the Helatrobus implants – referenced by LRH -, and other implants and incidents).

      So, interpreting “transcend Scn” as going higher than what strictly LRH developed, Ralph Hilton has transcended Scn in a way very few has been able to do it.

      However, Ralph Hilton has found that in order to being able to (solo-)audit territory uncharted by LRH (like incidents in the early universes, etc.), there is no need to improve the Logics and Axioms of Scn as developed by LRH.

      • martyrathbun09

        From your description of what Ralph is auditing, he has not transcended Scientology. He is pursuing the same line of trap the corporate group is. Continuing to mock up timetrack.

        • Exactly…………. You can find stuff to erase for ever and ever. At some it is increased awareness of self that becomes the proceedure, and the tool, the mind, becomes comprehended and under control by the awareness of awareness unit.

          Erasure of pain is the only the beginning of abilities. It can be done at will, anytime when needed.

      • Dear MaBű , it seems to me that LRH went back and forth as regards the running of incidents and implants (i.e. facsimiles). In the Scn 8-8008 excerpt below, he changed his approach from the earlier one of running facsimiles (which began with Dianetics). But, as you know, he later went back to that approach (and he ended up with New Era Dianetics, etc.).

        The idea I have gotten is that LRH found out that using other methods than running facsimiles isn’t very easy to do for most auditors or for most pcs – and he wanted a tech that would work for everybody. That was why he went back again to the tech of running incidents – but with the idea of doing so only long enough to get the pc to a point where he was senior to and capable of handling the remaining facsimiles, and also capable of running the original OT levels, which drilled OT abilities.

        Lastly, he developed NOTs tech and OT VIII – Truth Revealed. My impression is that by the time the pre-OT got to OT VIII (which, by report, is not the version that is being delivered in the CoS in PT) LRH considered that he (the pre-OT) would achieve that EP of Truth Revealed. (Actually, it seems to me that many people who have done whatever amount of auditing arrived at a point where they had the capability of finding Truth for themselves.)

        Note: I would appreciate anyone correcting me if I have wrong data or missing data. In any case, here’s the excerpt from Scn 8-8008 as regards the two methods, the two different paths to take:

        “The study of knowledge is in essence, in the MEST universe, a study of data. Data in the MEST universe are usually recorded in facsimiles. Thus one can go in two directions toward knowledge. The first is knowing what one is, and the second is knowing what has happened to one in the MEST universe and searching for identity in the MEST universe.

        “There is no more tragic track than the sordid ransacking of facsimiles to discover
        TRUTH for all one discovers is what is true for the MEST universe…

        “The road to knowledge led through the anatomy of the space and energy masses called the MEST universe. The data did not lie in the MEST universe. The ransacking of facsimiles for data about one’s identity, about one’s ‘past history’ in the MEST universe, should be tolerated by the auditor only insofar as it gives him materials for creative processing.
        […]
        “The difficulty the preclear is having is not so much the content of various facsimiles but, on this high echelon of Scientology on which we are now operating, the fact that he has facsimiles. The path of better techniques is the path toward permitting the preclear to step away from all his facsimiles.

        “The track to knowledge, then, has two directions. It is possible at this time to take the better path. The essence of true knowledge is the essence of existing so that one can create
        beingnesses and data to know. All other data are junior to this.”

  4. That Cause must be balanced with Effect seems right, and that would show the futility of trying to At Cause only. The ‘time’ thing hangs me up though. Back in the 60s I did once experience ‘time eternal’ on an LSD trip, but I was way beyond being analytical while it was happening.

    Back in the “real world”, take an example of my wine glass getting knocked off the table and shattering on the floor. I can run that backwards in my mind and see the pieces flying up and reassembling as the wine pours back into the glass, but I know that it didn’t happen that way and never would. The scenario makes sense running in one direction but not the other, which means there is a before and after, also a cause and effect.

    Try as I might, I can’t let go of the concept of time unless I also forego any attempt to understand the world, as I did during that LSD trip.

    • martyrathbun09

      Master and transcend that cause and effect balance, and I bet you can begin to perceive four dimensionally. That is not to say, reeling time forward and backward, but instead seeing without the tinted glasses of time and space.

      • Sage advice…
        it’s all about balance…and that is something that one must experience the real definition of…yin, yang …in life, love and practice…not words….but, existing….for real.

        • “not words…but,existing”. Yes. In reading through Marty’s post again and the other comments here, it occurs to me that I have a lifelong (or longer) habit of grasping the reality of things by “figuring it out” rather than just experiencing them. I’m rather good at it most of the time, but the limits of that approach would be right there in the confines of the language in which one thinks.

          Space and time, cause and effect, are etched in the woof and warp of English and probably of most other languages, which is no doubt why I’m having a hard time conceiving of them not being fundamental to reality itself. But, just realizing that is perhaps the starting point for another growth spurt.

          • “…the limits of that approach would be right there in the confines of the language in which one thinks.”

            You are echoing that which Korzybski so aptly describes — I’ve quoted some of the key concepts he explored. As you read further into the quotes, you might find you have to keep returning to the 3rd paragraph in which object is defined. This is because the word object has been thoroughly abused, confused and misused in modern language.

            From Korzybski:

            “We take something (anything) let us say a pencil; we show it and ask, ‘What is this?’ This is a process, a chunk of nature, a clog of electricity, a mad dance of electrons; this is something acted upon by everything else, and reacting upon everything else; this is something which is different all the time, something which we can never recognize, because when it is gone, it is gone, etc.

            This something which we can never recognize we call an event (Minkowski, Lorentz, Einstein, Whitehead, Planck, Millikan, etc.). The number of characteristics an event has, is infinite.

            Yet in this event which we cannot recognize there is something fairly permanent which we can recognize. This we call an object (Whitehead). We label our object with a special symbol which we call a word.”

            […]

            “What is an object? An object is a first abstraction, a first rough summary, a first integration, etc., of the infinite number of characteristics of the event, into the few characteristics of the object.”

            […]

            “The complexities of life and of the organism become intelligible in terms of orders of abstractions, and it must be repeated again, that it is immaterial how many orders of abstractions we ascribe to an organism — the method remains the same.”

            […]

            “This faculty for building higher and higher abstractions is the mechanism of the characteristic rapid accumulation, which makes man a man.

            If, for instance, we could see an electron in its flight, the world would be a maze; no law, no order, no intelligence would be possible.”

            […]

            “From an event we can abstract an infinite number of abstractions of first and higher orders. Only folly can make us fight for these abstractions, which are only poor selections among the infinity of possible ones. We do not need to doubt human reason, we should distrust our language. There is a world of difference between these two conceptions and attitudes.”

            […]

            “There are a few interesting points about ‘matter,’ ‘space’ and ‘time.’ Taken separately they are abstractions of high order and not objects, or abstractions of first order. If we objectify the high abstraction, we get a fanciful universe, self-contradictory, a nature which is against human nature. Being logical, we invent something supernatural to account for a nature against human nature. If ‘time’ is an object, if it has objective existence, then, obviously, it must have, as all objects have, a beginning and an end; then the universe was made, it must have a ‘beginning of the beginning’ (old ‘essences’), etc., etc., and the whole old anthropomorphic mythology follows, by a purely logical process. But if ‘time’ is an abstraction of high order and not an object (first order abstraction), otherwise, if it does not exist as an object, then, obviously, something which does not exist cannot have a ‘beginning,’ or a ‘beginning of the beginning,’ the universe was not ‘made,’ etc. It just was, is, and will be. Obviously the ‘primal substance’ may quite happily be a myth in such a universe of transformation; we cannot exhaust it in either direction.”

            You can read the entire article here:
            http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/korzybski_timebind01.htm

            There really is a problem with the language and it may very well be critical to the problem. The 1913 dictionary contains the following entry on the word object:

            “In the Middle Ages, subject meant substance, and has this sense in Descartes and Spinoza: sometimes, also, in Reid. Subjective is used by William of Occam to denote that which exists independent of mind; objective, what is formed by the mind. This shows what is meant by realitas objectiva in Descartes. Kant and Fichte have inverted the meanings. Subject, with them, is the mind which knows; object, that which is known; subjective, the varying conditions of the knowing mind; objective, that which is in the constant nature of the thing known. Trendelenburg.” http://1913.mshaffer.com/d/search/_words.word,object

            A complete reversal! And from what I can tell, we use the reversal in our current language, which could certainly lead to some spectacularly faulty thinking.

            • That’s fascinating, the reversal of definitions for ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’. Thanks Maria, for bringing it to our attention. In trying to increase our wisdom on the foundation of those who had gone before, it would tend to pull out the rug from under us right there, wouldn’t it? In my limited reading of Immanuel Kant it always seemed his goal was to cause obfuscation rather than enlightenment, and this would certainly fit the pattern.

            • Yes, that is always an interesting find: a reversal. Language is its own trap in that, as you point out, it is fluid. It constantly changes in pronouncement, spelling, and then semantically. The origin of a word is an amazing journey that can give insight into an entire period of think. But, in the end, it is still ‘think’. People really get upset about language change though because language is culture. Currently,there is this whole fear of any language but English being spoken in this country, which is a political matter not aligning with this blog, but I am reminded how much people are afraid of change and wanting to keep things solid and not moving. Transcendence means letting go.

      • Aeolus & Marty – Is time necessary? No. An living example is the Amondawa tribe. Our viewpoint is based on the paradigm we consider exists to view from. Truth is our own relativity in essence.

        Australiangeographic article – Amazon tribe has no language for time
        borrowed quote on the matter:
        “For the Amondawa, time does not exist in the same way as it does for us,” he says. “We can now say without doubt that there is at least one language and culture which does not have a concept of time as something that can be measured, counted or talked about in the abstract. This doesn’t mean that the Amondawa are ‘people outside time’, but they live in a world of events, rather than seeing events as being embedded in time.”
        Timeless Amazon languages

        Team members including linguist Wany Sampaio and anthropologist Vera da Silva Sinha, spent eight weeks with the Amondawa, a sub-group of the Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau people, researching how their language conveys concepts like ‘next week’ or ‘last year’. There were no words for such concepts, only divisions of day and night and rainy and dry seasons. They also found nobody in the community had an age.

        Instead, they change their names to reflect their life stage and position within their society. For example a little child will give up their name to a newborn sibling and take on a new one.

        “We have so many metaphors for time and its passing – we think of time as a ‘thing’ – we say ‘the weekend is nearly gone’, ‘she’s coming up to her exams’, ‘I haven’t got the time’, and so on, and we think such statements are objective, but they aren’t,” Chris says.

        “We’ve created these metaphors and they have become the way we think,” he adds. “The Amondawa don’t talk like this and don’t think like this, unless they learn another language. For these fortunate people time isn’t money; they aren’t racing against the clock to complete anything, and nobody is discussing next week or next year; they don’t even have words for ‘week’, ‘month’ or ‘year’. You could say they enjoy a certain freedom.”
        end of borrowed quote

    • Contemplate the idea that present,past, and future are all happening at the same “time”. Edward Casey spoke of this state of being which allowed him to help others. This is in response to your broken wine glass scenario.

      • Jewel

        Yes

        I actually was fortunate enough to experience that state on Grade Three.

        It puts me in an awkward position when someone requests me to “move” to some other time. I no longer easily “go earlier similar” (though I can still mock up that altered reality). For me, it is firmly part of my awareness that there is no time except right now. One can create, or re-create, images of the past or future, but it is all being done, and experienced, in present time.

        To me it is that continuous creation of “right now”, and the ability to “view” (re-create) earlier creations of “right now”, that gives one the apparency of a continuum of time. One can alter their experience of time by altering the speed at which they create the continuum. I have yet to nail that one, but I have occasionally experienced it.

        Eric S

  5. Because we are not composed of time, we are no older than we ever were. It is only our own considerations about time (and space) that make us feel so old and so small in this big Universe….

    Transending time and space in Scientology is pretty easy, when you are in session. So, I highly recommend getting into session to transend to “Native State”, whatever that might be.

    Reverse Scientology, like sec checking in the middle of major actions for the purposes of gaining control of you, can block your transendence and “park” you in time and space like no other transendental technology could ever park you. The only way out of that parking lot, that I know of, is to personally recognize the existence of reverse Scientology, and then start on the road to freeing yourself. If you are reading this blog, it was the first step.

  6. Marty, I really like the approach you are taking towards scntlgy.

    That is exactly in alignment with “How to study a science”.

    You are only one of very few who actually “get” the point of that article.

    Without which it is impossible to understand scntlgy.

    Therefore very few people understand scntlgy. Most think that if you can parrot it, you make it your own and therefore that means understanding.

    Not correct.

    The point of “How to study a science” in plain English means to think for your self and think outside the box.

    Dio

    • Exactly….”The playing of a better game in ones own estimation” means that you are more cause and you are happier. How you get there is up to you. There truly are basic laws in all of life that cannot be denied.

  7. Marty, this is a well written article.

    “Scientology technology is powerful in lifting an individual from being effect up to being more at cause.”

    And therein lies the problem. Once, you have become more cause you are being told to stay effect. In KSW as well as “Offenses and Penalties”. The problem is that there is no route back to being an effect.

    Indeed LRH ridicules Quantum Mechanics and Relativity while showing shameful ignorance in both. Had he really bothered to try to understand QM, especially the underlying philosophy of it, I believe he could have made great use of it, and also gain respect from the scientific community. When you claim to have a PhD in Nuclear Physics, and yet demonstrate your ignorance of it, it is hard to gain respect.

    In writing the Qs and the Axioms and Logics LRH showed that he was a great philosopher. Those are very much in alignment with modern physics. Too bad he could not see it.

  8. The most profound and concise quote I have found on the subject of “Time” is contained, bizarrely, in a Frank Zappa satirical piece called, “The adventures of Greggery Peccary” on the 1978 album “Studio Tan”.

    Read the wikipedia entry below to get a synopsis of the story for context.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Greggery_Peccary

    Upon seeking the wisdom of a “philostopher” (sic), Greggery Peccary attends a group assembly held by “the greatest living philostopher known to mankind”, the fictitious Quentin Robert DeNameland, who declares, “Time… is of affliction…”

    And that about sums it up, don’t it?

    • Thanks for that! Frank Zappa was an awesome guy because he was like a cubists with music. He could play style the ‘right’ way, but chose to create with it and bend it around so to speak in addition to adding his sociopolitical twist. I know he was in Scientology for a bit, I think he was on his grades when he got cancer. I remember him saying that his albums were just one continual album. He was a natural sociologist in that he would take time to study people. He said that “As long as there were people wanting to get laid, there would be Disco”. LOL, this was after visiting Discos and observing. This guy was outside the box in many ways. The fact that he didn’t allow drugs in his band, not even weed was very different at a time when drugs were part and parcel with many bands.

      • Thanks for the great ack, Jewel. I always loved the satirical sociopolitical twists and plotlines that Zappa would put into his “rock opera” style albums. When I was a kid growing up, a good buddy of mine and I would get together and listen to Zappa’s albums all the time – at first cracking up at the outrageous humor and later (as we got older) being astounded at his uncannily accurate sociopolitical and philosophical observations.

        That same buddy (Ross Wright) was the Music Director for the stage play of Zappa’s “Joe’s Garage” back in 2008. Zappa makes fun of Scientology in this one:

        http://www.playbill.com/news/article/120063-Joes-Garage-Based-on-Zappa-Album-to-Make-World-Premiere-in-September

        It got rave reviews and an extended run.

  9. Marty, very well stated.

    The most basic contradictions in Scientology are not in its Axioms, & fundamental laws of Theta-MEST, nor in its auditing procedures. No, they are the magnificent products of unparalleled genius.

    The travesty and contradictions to all those incredible insights are found in Scientology’s general approach and spin about itself as a group and its relationships with every individual that seeks to use it.

    For while Scientology, no doubt, could take you to those promised mystical states, it subsequently bars and corrupts those attainments by the following:

    1) It very carefully indoctrinates every student into the belief that they must become a Scientologist in order to achieve those higher states.

    2) It very carefully indoctrinates every student to be obedient and subservient to the subject itself.

    3) It gradually takes on the universe of every student and makes nothing out of it, and progressively makes the universe of Scientology the end goal of everything.

    That all mystical traditions of any import had already identified and recognized those points above as the ultimate blocks in attaining higher states, is completely lost to the average Scientologist.
    The higher the training the more arrogant and clueless same of these auditors seem to be.

    It should be plainly obvious to anyone contemplating freedom of viewpoint, pan-determinism, the state of non-duality or the Static itself, that becoming fixated into something, let alone asserting and defending other-determined identity, are contrary to the attainment of those goals.

    The last act of the mystic in attaining his goal, is to dispose of whatever system he used to get there, not to hide it from others who will follow, but to free himself from its clutches.

    So in my view, Scientology in actuality is a philosophical contradiction, and its advertised goals are at present an impossibility.

    • Conan, your points seems very true.

      And Marty, these last blog posts are very exciting and answers
      a lot of questions I have had for a looong time. Of course you
      can’t intellectualize the true essence of what a being is but then
      again, you have to use words to communicate so therein we
      have the limits to understanding life. On a conscious level you
      you get the small or fantastic level of key-out in session to
      sometimes an earth shattering blowout along with ext with
      partial or near full perceptions external to the physical body
      and things become so crystal clear what you are and how
      things are interrelated to you and you have no wonderment
      any more. Things just fall into place, spiritually, mentally
      and physically. These are the times LRH talks about; come
      back tomorrow, next week or month or even years! Reading/
      studying the first 11 Scientology axioms after each session
      can only enhance that state. LRH brilliance in putting those
      down on paper shows his genius and spiritual insight.
      With the cause and effect, game of life, you go into and
      create then out and perceive your creation. BUT, it is also
      true that in what Ron called “native state” there is not really
      any cause nor effect. Look at axiom one: “postulate and
      perceive”, IMHO. What I have experienced it is just “is”, if
      that makes sense. In the next level down there is contribution
      to the particles flow of what you perceive.
      My 2 cents.

  10. If you sit on your desk in front of your computer for 1 hour and then remember 1 hour ago then you can see yourself in front of your computer sitting in your chair in your room. But this is only true if you look at the picture you made this moment one hour ago. If you would go back in time then you would notice that you still sit in front of your computer in your room. But your rooms position in space is quite different this moment in time one hour ago. A picture you can erase without taking into account this difference. But if you would travel back in time and not change location then you could not find the scene. As that room you did sit one hour ago had been at a different location. Thus you can find wrong time quite easily. By location. The location, thus the room or space is bound to time. Not the relative coordinates but the absolute coordinantes in space in this universe. If you room did not travel along the 4th dimension then the 4th dimension coordinate is the common denominator. If your room would travel along the 4th dimension then you would also travel through time. As traveling through the 4th dimension vector is without time. This dimension is not bound to time. I know this is a difficult subject very difficult to communicate.

  11. Great subject. I originally bought and read the Tao of Physics in 1983. I was still thinking through the filter of -did it match or not my Scientology training. It still created changes in my thinking that continues to today. The procedures developed by LRH can absolutely increase one’s awareness of self and the universe. But, then one must be willing to actually observe and think with the observation and not just dub-in what you think should be there and try and think with it.

    Anybody interested in expanding on this subject can also look/watch some video by Lawrence Krause, physicist, on the the universe is “Something from nothing”. Also the physicist Nassim Haramein (good start is youtube video “important statements and information” which is a synopsis from several of his presentations. Both of these people give you a different viewpoint to view the universe and your part in it.

    Could it be that we use constructs and agreements as given in Scientology materials to increase our reality and awareness and ability to perceive. But, then, it may require a question of those stable datums to see if others need to now be in place.

    I went through this same thing studying chemistry and biochemistry. Start with model of atom, electrons, protons, orbits etc and then get to the quantum chemistry/physics level and my instructor told us these don’t really exist – it is really just a morphing changing energy field of vibrations. I asked him after class why we were made to learn something as fact only to later be told it wasn’t really true. His answer – very honestly stated – we currently know of no way to get your basic understanding up to where you could comprehend this energetic idea at without the earlier model. To me that is a demonstration of transcending and not be stuck in what worked as the end of the desire to know more basic truths.

    • S/A,

      Thinking within the parameters of one’s existing (other determined) paradigm is the fundamental problem that has plagued beings living in the material world since the beginning of time.

      LRH neatly addresses this subject in PAB 15 “Acceptance Level Processing” wherein he states:

      “There is one thing you should know about ARC. The most ARC there can be is a complete identification: the person is the person with whom he has the ARC. One sees this in valence shifting. This goes down a dwindling spiral until the most complete ARC there is exists in the form of eight anchor points enclosing no space: in other words, a particle. Thus, trying to understand, purely as such, from data offered is in itself a perilous undertaking, for the end of the road is zero space, and that in itself is the opposite end of the tone scale. That is the end where MEST is. “Trying to understand” run as a concept—even that is quite startling. Knowingness has to do with certainty, and understanding which advances along the lines of certainty creates more space, not less space. Thus there is the low funnel end of ARC as well as an upper end of ARC. Trying to understand by reason of data before one looks brings about the vanishing point of existence.”

      • Scott – Understood. You stated “Thinking within the parameters of one’s existing (other determined) paradigm is the fundamental problem that has plagued beings living in the material world since the beginning of time.”

        The other viewpoint is thinking from an existing paradigm which is your own and NOT other determined. Once you change your own paradigm – transcendence, ascendance or descendance (from whatever viewpoint you had before) your world will again be viewed differently.

        I think the only “fundamental problem that has plagued beings living in the material world” is not analyzing that which you decide to build your world upon. Dogma, just believing because an authority said, etc could each one result in an altered or skewed reality.

        Any un-analalyzed datum is capable of being aberrative and makes up the bank per LRH. In the non LRH world any stable datum accepted which it truly is just a “maybe” and not know by personal evaluation to be true can lead one astray.

        If the universe as agreed upon by you and others changes and you do not transcend and make adjustments would also leave you stranded in a world where you are stuck with wrong answers and blindly insisting it is the question that is incorrect. When the question changes, the answers should be reviewed as it may or may not still be the answer. Living life requires the ability to change – otherwise we are stone dead in a cold unmoving world void of life and motion.

    • I watched the Krause video and was glad to hear his argument for making something (the universe) from nothing. More than just an argument, the scientific data essentially proves that this universe sprang from nothing. Well, maybe not nothing, but from a quantum instability – which COULD spring from nothing.

      In Krause’s viewpoint this possibility eliminated any need for a creator of a universe.

      However, following Krause’s logic, if a quantum instability could appear out of nothing and become a universe, then could not an instability also become a thetan? And what is that thetan if not a potential creator of universes?

      The quantum model seems to fit the nature of the thetan perfectly. The quantum model posits that there exists two states: one state is all probability (in other words infinity possibility) and the other state is a “condensation”, a solidifying of a probability into an actuality. That means you can have a “nothing” (pure probability) solidifying to a “something” (a wave or a particle in QM, and maybe a “mass” or energy picture for a thetan). For either the thetan or a physical universe particle the exact same model works.

      The most powerful thing about that model, though, is that it opens the door to the attainment of all the potentials identified by the “abilities gained” column on the grade chart.

      • If you watch the Nassim Haramein video you will get a simple explanation from physics of how space defines matter and not matter defining space. Both more in line with the axioms, et al.

        I fully concur that understanding the model by which we compare to understand and align other thoughts, decisions, agreements, etc AND with the application of processes to wake us up then the “abilities gained” is quite doable. Not because we agree with them, but because without blinders on we can actually experience and “be” at that level.

    • Back in the 70’s I met a Scientologist who had a masters (or
      PHD) in math and he said what helped him in that subject after
      having studied Scientology was the definition of a true 0. That
      would also help the quantum scientists IMO.

  12. I love a good scrutiny, and the realities of things. But you do leave out big chunks of LRH. The primary aberration is time and responsibility is no future or prior track. Or perhaps even more obvious, (even if not inte DS) the ultimate truth is a static.

    I won’t be chasing ones when zeros are in sight.

    • martyrathbun09

      Yeah, like you ultimately are the effect of an alien species of being. But you are in perfect adherence with ‘zero’ doctrine: and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of an effect.

      • Words are a powerful thing, even noted in the Veda, all made up to denote the tangible.

        We are dealing with the intangible.

      • “and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of an effect.”

        Exactly, Marty. And this doctrine leads directly to a quantitative universe as described by binary code, binary statistics or even the I Ching, for that matter.

        • martyrathbun09

          Man, I think you doing your Bridge after learning all that you’ve learned is very fortuitous. I really look forward to continuing to hear of your obserations as you progress.

        • It is exactly like that.
          “The entire purpose of the cause was the creation of an effect”.
          Transcendence is best understood above this point. Actually The Factors describe the game below the timeless band (meaning, the game where cause and effect are in use and create time trough motion in space).
          The other viewpoints (the three universes doctrin) do the same and you can see their products. They are also able to “transcend” to the level where they no longer “cause an effect”.
          I see no contradiction here. The Factors describe the game, so to speak. And this is good and serves the purpose of familiarization with the aspects of the game so you could more easily transcend it.
          Ron speaks about this concept in “Considerations and Mechanical”, that you do for example objective processes in order to re-familiarize with your environment (and the earlier postulates) so you could than be able to change your postulates (after you are familiar with the environment again).
          This is all part of the same “process”. I know that I experienced a exteriorization when I first read The Factors, and they can be used for two things A) playing a better game B) transecndence ot the “agreed upon” universe(s) (it’s plural, as you can have different agreements with different viewpoints).

        • You are not alone.

          In the beginning to be sure, nothing existed,
          nether the heaven, nor the sea nor space in between.
          So nonbeing, having decided to be, became spirit and said: “Let me be!”
          He warmed himself further and from this heating was born fire.
          He warmed himself still further and from this heating was born light.

  13. Marty,

    When you have an hour or two free, have a look at the movie, WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW? Great movie about the relationship between Quantum Physics and Spirituality.

  14. Interesting debates you guys have going on here. Just my two cents:
    When we are talking about total causation there are three main issues I see that have been missed by some (or many) in SC:

    1. Total causation is an absolute and it can be very disappointing when one sets out for that and end up with partial causation. Anything less than ‘total’ will be a letdown. I prefer to call the goal ‘elevated causation’
    which should increase with every step one takes on the bridge towards ‘total causation’ but never reaches it as that is an unobtainable absolute.

    2.Then the next issue is: Cause over what?
    I think this is where many go off the rails. Setting out to be cause over the physical universe would mean to have mind over matter abilities. Whereas I think the original goals was to have elevated causation ‘over self’. If we just do that it would inherently include freeing ourselves from the negative effects of outside influence and interaction with the physical universe. By extension one who has elevated causation over self will also have elevated causation over the physical universe. But not in a ‘levitating objects’ sense or ‘I postulate I will have a mansion within 30 days’ sense.

    3. I still think that there are two kinds of people who enter SC. Those who think for themselves and those who follow. You can’t get SC tech by following. You just can’t! Those who think for themselves will figure out the above two points on their own. Those who follow will not. Those who think for themselves will do as LRH recommended an verify every piece of what they hear. Then they will know by observing it to be true or false as they should see fit. Those who follow will take many things from LRH granted and just accept thereby not developing the necessary fundamental understanding that SC was all about on the first place. I think the idea of transcendence is great but I can’t help to think that those who follow and don’t manage to switch over to ‘think for self’ mode will not get put back on the rails even with transcendence. To be able to transcend one actually has to quit following.

    I have yet to meat someone who switched from ‘following’ to ‘thinking for self’. IMO many (if not all) of those who do not already think for themselves already upon entering the SC scene remain followers no matter what.

    Even if LRH would have put something like this under each and every one of his signatures: “P.S.: Don’t forget to think for yourself”

    I think that there is a threshold of think for self -ness under which people remain followers. Those who are above the threshold will be able to think for themselves more and more as they progress up the bridge. The more they think the closer they will be able to move their own subjective reality to objective reality. From the viewpoint of one person, the subjective reality of all other people is part of objective reality. Therefore one needs to study and understand others also as part of increasing the objectiveness of their own subjective reality. This later is the tricky part where SC tech really comes in to allow one to do that.
    Understanding others is part of understanding objective reality since all other people and their doingness is part of the real world.

    As always this is just my own subjective take on the matter.

    • I agree with your post, especially point 3. I have observed that those who cannot think for themselves, duplicate LRH in a different way. One that does not translate into application of the philosophy.

      • Thank you for that feedback. Those who think for themselves end up finding themselves in a ‘place’ which can be quite strange and sometimes isolated. Very suiting to find company there. I do appreciate it. (the more the merrier)

        Thinking for yourself is contagious. Keep up the good work infecting🙂

    • A! = A, really appreciate your post. Very provocative for me. I’m gonna ponder this for a bit then I’ll give you some feedback. Cheers ~ Monte

    • A! = A, it was your point 3 that got me to click the rewind icon and go back to my entry in SC and look to see if I was following or thinking for myself. Well, as I suspected, I was definitely following.

      A few months prior to my encounter with DMSMH I was asking (more like pleading) the ‘Universe’ to hook me up with an adventure, a cause, a purpose that would be something I could dedicate my life to. My request did not go unanswered. The ‘Universe’ aka ‘my Higher Self’ obviously that the SC experience was exactly what Monte needed. And now, seemingly on the other side of that experience (must not be completely on the other side of it or else I wouldn’t be following this blog), I totally agree. The SC experience, exactly as I had it, was exactly what I needed when I needed it.

      When I entered SC at the age of twenty-six I did so having had numerous spiritual experiences that had left me in a bewildered state where I had pretty much withdrawn from my spiritual related inquires. And even though I was attempting to suppress my inclination to explore the existential through partaking in copious amounts of drugs, sex and rock n roll, it wasn’t working. Thus my plea to the ‘Universe.’ When I came into SC I knew that I didn’t know and, after reading DN and having that book make so much sense to me, then coming into the Portland Mission and seeing this plethora of information re the spirit…I was convinced that my ‘Higher Self’ had guided me right into the ‘mother lode’ of spiritual truth. I was ecstatic! And I instantly turned over my Be, Do and Have to L. Ron Hubbard and his church, his staff. At that moment any notion of ‘thinking for myself’ was turned off. I became a full fledged FOLLOWER of L. Ron Hubbard and his teachings. But, I didn’t stop there, I also became a full fledged SC ZEALOT.

      Eventually, many experiences and stories later (about three years worth), I began to take back my Be, Do and Have a begin thinking for myself again. And as I did so a rift of cognitive dissonance between the philosophy of SC and the application of the that philosophy, by the organization, began to manifest and grow ever wider. To cope with this I created my own version (interpretation/fantasy) of SC somewhere in the middle and this coping mechanism was viable for twenty-nine years.

      A! = A, you write: “I have yet to meat someone who switched from ‘following’ to ‘thinking for self’. IMO many (if not all) of those who do not already think for themselves already upon entering the SC scene remain followers no matter what.” Obviously, my experience has been different. Also, I do believe that beings are inherently sovereign and that any conscious or unconscious need a person has to follow someone or something, is false.

      I came into SC wanting and expecting to learn. I really wanted to ‘get it.’ However, and this took quite a while, I came to realize that there is no learning and that ‘getting it’ is actually about remembering it. I remembered I wasn’t a follower and I ceased to follow.

      Thanks again for your post A! = A. What I’ve written here is but a very small fraction of the journey your comment evoked.

      • Hi Monte. Thank you for your post. This is exactly what I post for to be able to gather feedback from the reality of others. Every time someone shares a bit of their reality with me I can get my subjective reality that much closer to the objective reality. (Which I have stated before I think encompasses all the subjective realities of others, especially those we come in contact with)

        Based on what you wrote I would say you were thinking for yourself before SC already. Then you gave that up a bit. Then got back to thinking for yourself. (Sorry, if I over simplify)

        That is very similar to my story. There is a tendency after reading DN to just listen to LRH and accept at face value because the man had so much logic. When we see a long enough pattern of fail free logic presented by someone and carry on like he did in DN we tend to accept him as a fail safe source of info thereby bypassing our own urge to verify.

        However, (correct me if I am wrong) it seems to me that you were well above the threshold with your ability to think for yourself prior to SC. You already had the ‘magic’. You overrode it for a while but then got back on it (just like riding a bicycle). Why? Because you had the magic already.🙂 Must have spotted some things which woke your thinking for yourself abilities back up.

        The point is that I have to respectfully disagree with this being an exception from the theory I have presented. Naturally it is just a theory and by definition it can be wrong. But I still have yet to see someone who was always a follower start to think for themselves.

        The reason I am focused on this is because I want to see if this theoretical threshold exists or not.

        Having said all that, I have to say that I would never go up to someone who I consider to be below that threshold and eval the heck out of them by saying they are.

        However when I see someone I believe was above the threshold to begin with, I think it is OK to validate and acknowledge their ability. So while we are at it I would like to acknowledge your already existing ability to think for yourself prior to SC now, If that seems acceptable to you.

        • Yes, you’re correct A! = A, I was thinking for myself prior to SC. That’s why I was usually in trouble. 🙂 I did permit myself to fall under a ‘spell’ of sorts with regard to LRH but, as you suggested, there were some things that came along and woke me up (broke the spell) and there I was thinking for myself again and being back in trouble more often than not.

          When I think about it, organizations (at least the ones I’ve been a part of) and, in general, are just not geared to handle free thinkers. Organizations seem to need and prefer obedient “soldiers.” That in mind, it seemed that on one hand Ron was all about waking the ‘followers’ up into being free thinkers, however, the organizational system he designed was not conducive to that purpose.

          About your theory…you write: “But I still have yet to see someone who was always a follower start to think for themselves.” Perhaps you have yet to see someone who was ‘always’ a follower start to think for themselves because you haven’t observed them for a long enough period of time. In my case I vacillated between thinking for myself and being a follower and then back to thinking for myself within a short duration of time. Could be that a person who appears to be always following is actually vacillating on a cycle of much longer duration…possibly spanning lifetimes.

          A! = A, I greatly appreciate this exchange of perspectives. Thank you.

        • A!=A

          I consider that the ability to think for oneself is vital to having a sane approach to the universe.

          It is operating from ,or on, un-inspected data that makes one do crazy things. The bank, if you conceive there to be one, appears to simply be a repository of un-inspected data. All auditing does is invite a being to inspect and evaluate or re-evaluate that data, on a gradient.

          If one supposes that there is such a thing as a “reactive mind” it could be posited that it is merely that the being has saved images (or is continually creating them) that he did not duplicate, and subsequently did not evaluate, in order to “figure them out” (evaluate them) at some future time.

          So, having said that, I find I view others as though they all have an innate ability to duplicate and to evaluate correctly, but due to some overwhelm, or accumulated overwhelm by their environment, they are allowing the universe or “others” to think for them. They are no longer so willing to trust their own observations and evaluations. They tend to be more or less out of valence as they seem to be allowing “cause ” to be something, or someone, other than self. It is a drop downscale from “reason” to “react”, from some cause to mostly effect, from self-determined or pan-determined to other-determined.

          I find that if one invites and encourages them to “reason” they tend to move back on up a little higher.

          Eric S

    • A!=A

      Good stuff.

      As a trained supervisor, I have come to think hat the transition from “following” to “thinking for self” can be greatly assisted by a technology of study that makes that transition a key goal. I believe, and have had success with approaching study and training from he viewpoint of asking for the student’s own opinion at every possible juncture. I challenge the student. Within reason, or if I suspect that the student is not thinking with the data, I will ask stupid questions, I will give other viewpoints, I may even say things that are simply not true, just to keep the student thinking with what they are studying. I use the drills in the Study Tapes often.

      I have discovered that the only way that a person is going to start evaluating data for himself is to make sure that he has several viewpoints to evaluate against each other. In that scenario the student is pretty much “forced” to figure out which one (or parts thereof) is the most true for him.

      And besides, It also makes study a lot more fun.

      Eric S

      • Eric,
        I am very glad to hear that this works because you just described exactly what I have been contemplating recently. The way I see it is that the ability to adapt is a built in one of all of us. (minus severe physiological issues of course) If it wasn’t we couldn’t pick our native language to begin with. Wherever we are born we pick up whatever language is spoken there. Being able to speak is a useful and necessary skill but it is not the only thing we adapt to from our surrounding. When someone is surrounded by thieves chances are they will also steal for a living. When someone grows up among people who have high integrity they tend to develop high integrity. But there is a very important factor to adaptation. What is visible about other people is more likely adapted than the subjective reality. Any subjective quality of the parent or teacher will only brush off when demonstrated frequently enough. Also adaptation is most likely majority based, which means the most prevalent characteristics of the surrounding will be adapted most. Then on top of that we have case, false/missing information and accidents come in to complicate things. Regardless of all that I would dare to say that when one grows up in an environment where people around don’t have a solid habit of verifying what they hear by thinking about it then that is what will get adapted as a habit. Adaptation does not work as well automatically on things we don’t get exposed to daily. So what you are doing with the students is great as you are exposing them to a precise way of learning. You are infecting them with sanity. I would imagine that just one or few session is not enough. It takes time to tip someone over I would think because after a lesson/session they go back to the environment where they didn’t get to see such ability to be adapted. Still I’ve said “I have yet to see” because I have yet to see🙂 I am very interested in this phenomena because I think that what you have described you do is what’s missing from SC and it has much to do with it being so derailed. I know LRH introduced word clearing and clay demos and such but somehow it wasn’t done enough. Why? Perhaps insisting too much on people actually getting things got in the way of income stats. Not the first thing pure money motivation screwed up. Bottom line is that SC should not be done by those who do not strive for solid duplication. Those who did not have a chance to adapt/form such habit should be on a program with teachers like you who instill such before they attempt to walk the bridge. The more I think about it and the more you guys tell me the more I think there is a threshold. People should be brought up above that threshold prior to SC. Or was the idea that they would do that on the grades? (Just thinking out loud here) I might have to get trained after all to find out.

        Anyways thanks for the exchange!

  15. Does anyone know anything about this:

    http://www.holodynamics.com

    Does anyone know if Dr. V. Vernon Woolf was in scientology?

    It seems to have some similarities, which is why I ask.

    Dio

  16. I am obviously not accomplished at adoption of controversial viewpoints and rattling cages to jar the occupants into thinking about things for themselves. As long as the door to the cage is opened, then that’s a good thing if one can get the heck out of the way quickly enough when the animal inside realises you’ve given it a way out. I am saying that Scn has as its aim precisely that. It is not Scn I have ever had a problem with, but misinterpretations of Scn have indeed caused me quite a bit of trouble. If anyone feels confined, then that is not Scn they are confined by, but their own – or others’ – misunderstandings or misinterpratations of it. I believe the purpose of Scientology is not to establish a way of looking at things, but to establish looking at things, itself, to see things as they are. Imo, Scn has been very misunderstood very broadly, as the former, that is, as a way of looking at things, somehow imposed. Any imposition was, in my view, to get individuals to actually run standard Scn tech, not anything else, to achieve for themselves the desired end result of looking and evaluating life, for themselves.

    Scientology states the truth, yes, but NEVER presumed to be senior to it. Nor did Scn intend to be senior to you. That some have misused Scn to try to establish their seniority and abusive dominance over another is shocking.

    • martyrathbun09

      Did you find something controversial and cage rattling about this book recommendation?

      • (What cage?) Your reply here does rattle my cage of my self-imposed limitations on ARC. Who can say they could not do with more? There is much I have considered and written but not posted after reading your blog, and comments. It is always stimulating. Always seems to happen.

        Your reply to Marildi “I have attempted to make that differentiation for four years now …” clarified for me as well what initially surprised me in your topic post (I haven’t read all going back four years). The notion of vision outside time-space seems to be in perfect conformity with The Factors as regards dimension points, and is true in everyday experience. For me, both exterior and the concept of total causality over the material world revolve around the confluence or tailoring of personal ethics to Ethics. Those in turn would be KRC and the expression of that through ARC (small symbols for large concepts). Serendipitously, good ethics are very useful all along that pathway to creating better effects.

        • Carcha

          I very much align with this… where you said…

          “For me, both exterior and the concept of total causality over the material world revolve around the confluence or tailoring of personal ethics to Ethics. Those in turn would be KRC and the expression of that through ARC (small symbols for large concepts). Serendipitously, good ethics are very useful all along that pathway to creating better effects.
          Leave a Reply Cancel reply”.

          Eric S

  17. How is it that we all see, feel and touch the same universe, including perceiving the passing of time, pretty much equally?

    It’s either a beautiful miracle or we are seriously trapped right now.

    • I guess it’s simply by agreement.
      How did you learn to walk this life? Similar concept.

    • Bryan

      Actually I suspect it would be impossible to actually prove that we do.

      We tend to consider that others view things the same way that we do. It leads to a great deal of misunderstanding when one has a fixed idea of.. “Obviously they see the same world as I do, so how could they possibly have come to such a “wacked” conclusion?”

      QED (quad erat demonstrandum)

      Eric S

  18. Marty I’m glad to see you quote Vivekananda. What a source of inspiration. I lived in the Vivekananda ashram in Buenos Aires in 1971, it was a fantastic time, lots of inspiration. One of the most transformative times in my life, so many fond memories.

    Vivekananda indeed says that time, space and causation are like the glass through which the absolute is seen. The fundamental question then becomes: given that I have the glass through which the absolute can be seen, how can I see this absolute?

    Not just think about the absolute, read about it, talk about it, but see, feel, experience it? (Otherwise it’s like talking about a glass of water without ever drinking it)

    Vivekananda says that time space and causation are like the glass through which the absolute is seen. But… they are neither the eye nor the sight nor the vision.
    Then how can sight, experienced of the absolute be acquired?

    As an intellectually-inclined young man, in the 70s I was surprised to discover that for Vivekananda and other such masters, the emphasis was on experience, rather than on thought, logic or reason which were my reference points. My constant question became “how can I gain this same experience?” Who could show me a way to see, to experience, with my finite body—not just with my head, but with my whole self–the absolute that which Vivekananda had experienced?

    As you put it, Marty: “The Eastern spiritual traditions show their followers various ways of going beyond the ordinary experience of time and of freeing themselves from the chain of cause and effect – from the bondage of karma, as the Hindus and Buddhists say. It has therefore been said that Eastern mysticism is a liberation from time.”

    The question then becomes: how do I find the key to unlock the door of time, the key to attain liberation?. A highly personal quest, at the same a quest rooted in the most common element in all human beings. I believe we are all wired seek to find our true self and get liberated. Some succeed, many try, many never try. All I can look at is How Im doing on this path, and how much peace, and love (or trouble) do I leave in my wake as I sail across this ocean of life..

    Thanks for bringing this up Marty.

    • martyrathbun09

      Paul,
      Auditing technology is capable of ‘erasing’ enough mass and energy misidentified as self to make that vision attainable, in my experience. The trick is getting that done without taking on all the other baggage that goes with it.

  19. Marty,
    When you said:
    ” ‘Logic 8: A Datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.’
    Thus, the first comprehensive fusion of Eastern thought with Western science ultimately disallowed study of either in the continuing search for truth and higher levels of consciousness.”

    In my opinion, your conclusion above does not logically follow from what LRH said in that axiom. Thus, I don’t think that the word “thus” is appropriate.

    Also, you have pointed out numerous times that LRH studied the Tao, did you not? You also pointed out that he regarded it to be a philosophic basis for Scientology. Doesn’t that indicate that he regarded it as a “datum of comparable magnitude”?

    • martyrathbun09

      I pointed out that subsequent scripture makes application of Logic 8 impermissible.

      • I don’t see where you mentioned anything about subsequent scripture making logic 8 impermissible, unless you mean your mention of the logics and axioms themselves. Yet they would be data of comparable magnitude, would they not?
        Could you clarify which subsequent scripture you are referring to?

        • martyrathbun09

          I have done so in What Is Wrong With Scientology and on this blog a number of times. Another means of making impermissible is by continuing inculcaton of the idea – repeated literally thousands of times – through lectures, hcobs and policy that science and all branches of humanities are for the birds, lock, stock and barrel.

          • OK. So, simply put, it looks like you disagree with LRH as to the relative magnitude (sphere of interest, importance and unimportance, truth or untruth) of some sets of data compared to the set of data which comprises the subject of Scientology. Is this right?
            If so, I understand how you come to your conclusion even though I do not share it.

            • martyrathbun09

              It’s strange how you feel a need to re-define what someone writes. I wrote what I wrote, not they way you ‘simply put’ it.

  20. I think this hallucinatory cause, and megalomania has much to do with adding OT qualities to the first dynamic alone. A person that would attemp to -let say- control everyone through the first dynamic, would be a tyrrant. This is not out of SCN, but I think SPs dramatise that. They see themseves (first dynamic) as God –they seek to dominate.

    I think that taking responsibility (and the rest of KRC and ARC) for something has much to do with beingness. This responsibility is limited through the first dynamic. But what if one could be more than that?

    Is a thetan just first dynamic? If so, then why did Ron talk about being other dynamics, identity crisis?

    Yes I agree, transcend SCN, or trace it back to it’s roots to see what has changed ever since, or improve it, or make new tech…there can be many ways. The essence is, in my opinion, to as-is. And to as-is more than you put there. The more you as-is and the faster you do it, the better.🙂

  21. The whole concept of “trying to be total cause” is a paradox as silly as taking coals to Newcastle. A thetan already IS total cause, even of those things he’s created that inhibit or preclude him from demonstrating it. The objective of auditing is simply to help him recognize his causation of those self-created barriers as-is, resulting in greater willingness to demonstrate cause.

    But I can fully appreciate how a FIXTION upon being total cause would be the route to sociopathy. Compulsively attempting to be cause over and influence every effort or counter-effort within one’s field of perception is the living hell of fixed, stuck attention in which sociopaths “live”. They do so in total blindness to the fact that THEY are the cause of whatever is “happening to them”, thus reinforcing the desperate compulsion to be at cause over others. Where any laws are perceived to enforce that, to hell with those laws.

    Is there a state of being above cause? Or stated another way, is there a state of being above what one natively, inherently is? The horrible curse of being a thetan is that being cause is unavoidable. Even if one were to transcend the agreed-upon physical universe into the bosom of unified field of pure consciousness, any state of “no cause” – only pure potential – would be fleeting a best. All one you have to do in that state is perceive (just open on theta peeper), and in so doing that which is perceived is instantaneously created – anchor points and thus space and thus dimension. Enter any motion at all and, oops, there’s time!

    Even if one COULD maintain a state of no cause/non-perception/pure potential only, would that be would that be something that one would want to aspire to as an absolute? Personally, it’s not somewhere I’d care to end up for eternity. If not fleeting, aside from the sheer boredom and loneliness of such a state, it would seem to be a delusional of sub-death of unconsciousness. Granted, an occasion ascension into the purity of the unified field of consciousness can be a refreshingly therapeutic and enlightening reorientation. And it can give one a chance to reevaluate for validity the decisions one has made about one’s latest adventure into the P.U. After all, I do believe that the action of Theta is reaching and withdrawing and thereby “learning”. But after my refresher, I’d want to get back in the game. It’s loads more fun than being a point of pure potential awash in the ocean of pure consciousness. But that’s just me.

    • Graduated, I saw your replies in the last post Marty wrote regarding the attacks on LRH/Scientology, I gather you were in the GO, and I am interested in communicating with you. Please could you email me at grogers258@gmail.com

      • George, sorry for the comm lag and also sorry to disappoint you, but I was not in the G.O. Sometimes, attorneys get to see things that even staff have never seen. And sometimes, such material is covered by attorney-client privilege and/or court seal.

    • Graduated.

      I like your posts.

      Thanks for taking the trouble to write them.

      Interesting.

      Otto and Marty and Simple have given me more dang reading to do!!

    • Gratuated, I agree with all that you just wrote except from the pure potential description. Pure potential would also mean no time, so there couldn’t be boredom, apathy etc….it would mean no creation…the above are creations, and so it is, to want to be in a game, and even to be aware. The decision ‘to be’ is a decision –a creation. The desire to learn, to play, loneliness, blackness, mystery, are all creations. I’m not asserting that there’s something wrong with this stuff, just saying native state aint that horrible –‘horrible’ is a creation too, and so is ‘awesome!’.🙂

  22. Hi I am an old acquaintance from NZ looking to get in touch with David Mayo, has anyone got any pointers, thanks Justin wiggly@xtra.co.nz

  23. I added this book to my must read list after Scott recommended it to Marty on an earlier thread. Since my father was a quantum physics guy, I’ve been reading about and discussing this stuff most of my life> I have dozens of books on the subject.

    For me, none are more meticulous, thorough and readable than this one. And to be reading it right on top of Ken Wilbur’s “A Brief History of Everything” is an added treat.

    So Thank-you Scott and Marty for yet another wonderful gift.

    And Scott, did your physicist uncle work at Los Alamos and/or Stanford? If so, I think my father may have met him. He was at Argonne Labs through most of the 1950’s and then went out to the west coast…

    Love to all,
    Vic Krohn

    • Hi Vic,

      I’ll have to ask him where all he did work. Maybe he and your father did know each other. He’s been pretty closed mouthed about a lot of stuff that he’s done as it involved the DOD and DARPA. I know that his work involved theoretical physics, thermonuclear plasma physics and cold fusion work at places like Caltech, UCLA, MIT and The University of Lusanne in Switzerland.

      He also has done a lot of computer science work where he would write algorithms, etc. to solve various problems of invention.

  24. “Scientology focuses heavily on, and makes great use of, Newtonian classic physics principles. Unfortunately, ultimately that world view tends to lock a Scientologist under a glass ceiling of sorts to further transcendence of awareness and qualities of equanimity.”

    I agree with that statement and, in fact, had reached that conclusion
    a few years after completion of OT8. The Buddha hit the same
    barrier over 2,500 years ago. None of the great teachers of his day
    could go beyond “the realm of nothingness”. This was the highest
    state of consciouness reached by the masters of the era. The Buddha
    was not satisfied with these teachers. After realizing “Nibanna” or
    “Nirvana”, the Buddha proclaimed that his Path was of his own
    creation. He used the simile of a “raft” for the Path which would
    be discarded after crossing the “Floods” or the “Stream”.
    OT8 was a very nice level, but it only takes one to the level of
    “removal of amnesia”. This is not the highest realm by any stretch of the
    imagination.
    George M. White

  25. The “total cause” flag and war cry really amped up sometime mid-early 80’s with the advent of chiropractors and dentists being wooed and rigged through Sterling Management (Glendale – dentist Greg Hughes (dentist) as owner) – Latch Management (SF – Lloyd Latch highly successful chiro – who employees Lynn Irons to reg other chiros to learn his “successful actions” – Hollander in Portland –

    Flag and the Sandcastle became unfamiliar territory to me – after awhile I recognized no one – but these heavy hitters WERE the new elite of Scientology driven in my mind by the promise of CAUSE over money and success.

    Pre this era of “professionals” (note , WISE groups were never able to do this with Doctors, Attorneys, Accountants) – the flavor really was of a group of people who, yes, wanted to “fix” whatever might have been broken in their lives but once done … Move up to spiritual pursuits.

    Spirituality wasn’t ever of interest to this group – they appeared only interested in more money, bigger houses, new trophy wives etc

    Christine

  26. 8-8008 will stand tall in at least the next 100 years. That is my prediction. The Mythology might fail, but the basic understanding of theta and mest is the best description for a long long time, in spiritual words.

    The Tao of Physics is outdated. Theorethical physicists agree that either Einstein’s relativity falls, or quantum mechanics falls. They are incompatible, so one of them must be wrong. 90 % of physicists predict that the first to fall is relativity. The standard model is describing reality so well, that it is too good to discard.

    Spacetime, as The Physics of Tao describes, is based on Einsteinian relativity. The moment the speed of light is proven variable, Einsteinian relativity and spacetime as the fourth dimension fails instantly. The latest on the speed of light can be seen in this interesting article:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130325111154.htm

    LRH predicted that the speed of light varies, as more and more observations indicate is true..

    A lot of quantum mechanics and even the standard model, is explainable through the factors and the axioms.

    I don’t think that particles exists. I think that the universe is composed of close to infinite standing waves, where the end point of each wave is the core of the atom.

    Quantum mechanics might not be confusing at all. If you split the entire universe into the physical universe (energy) and infinite separate mental parallel universes (opposite energy), the wave collapse might be explainable as where all the universes meet. The waves collapse in the orbit of the electron. The photons transferring energy between these orbits of electrons is what we as observers perceive as reality.

    If anybody got through the above paragraf without MU’s, then they might see the inspiration of that statement, the factors.

    Read about my theory at http://www.crestroy.com

    • martyrathbun09

      Fourth Dimension consciousness as described in the book does not fail. You may fail to achieve it or describe it; but it does not fail for those who seek.

      • That is true, but then the fourth dimension must be the static.

        • I’ve heard ideas that there are more than just four dimensions. I’ve even heard ideas that perhaps there are alien beings from multi-dimensional universes we can’t possibly see in our current state of limitation. This could include “ghosts” and/or “demons”. It’s all fascinating but no personal reality yet on this stuff for myself. Although….I have encountered beings without bodies several times this life. Haven’t really “seen” them. Just felt them and got pictures thrown at me by them.

          • Bryan, you might like this video. Imagining the fourth dimension. i recommend, too, checking out 10thdim’s YT channel. He has lots of videos about imagining dimensions.

            • Thanks Monte,

              That was very cool and it has me thinking about the idea of time simply being a direction as well as a stubbornly persistent illusion.

              Even more interesting was the idea of anti-matter going backwards in time.

              Perhaps beings living in the 4th dimension will be arriving in 1973 in 40 years from now???

              • Bryan, speaking of the fourth dimension, check this TED TALK video out. Skylar Tibbits: the emergence of 4D printing. (uploaded today)

        • martyrathbun09

          That frame of reference will certainly get up to and through OT VIII.

    • If I understood it right, dark matter is called „dark“ as it cannot be sensed, measured or directly experienced. Thus „dark“. But should exist. Anything that cannot be explained in physics currently is based on dark matter phenomena. You see, you cannot explain something and then explain it with something that cannot be proven to exist.
      Ok, currently I think the 4th dimension exists. But as long as I have no prove for that I cannot use this 4th dimension to prove other phenomena.
      My opinion is that Einsteins job had been to confuse the subject. Sure some workability has to be in his theories. But that is secondary. He also used basically an old trick. You know the light speed problem. You shoot a bullet in a train and the outside viewer adds to the bullet speed the train speed. Not true for light inside the train. In order to prove both circumstances Einstein told us that space and time can change. Speed is distance within a time frame. If you change in a system the factor time you can prove anything. A simple trick.
      Nowadays everything that has to sound „cool“ is based in Quantum Physics or Quantum Mechanics. To be honest, I do not know what exactly Quantum X , Y is. I only can observe if I want to sell something it has to be based on „Quantum something“.

      • martyrathbun09

        If you don’t mind, it don’t matter.

        • If it doesn’t matter, then why bother discussing quantum mechanics and physics at all?

          • martyrathbun09

            Because Scientology ultimately makes folk mind, which tends to accumulate matter.

            • Quite true. But tomorrow I am back at work. Have to take care for my computers. There is no space for speculation. Either they run or I made a mistake. To handle machinery is easy. They run or they do not run. Nothing in between. No speculation, theory or whatever mind bending stuff.

              • martyrathbun09

                Too bad spirit is not viewed as that simple.

                • The spirit is not a machine. But as I apply some tech I want to see results. Be it tech of computers or be it Scientology tech or whatever. Sample: I did sit in a pub and had an eye on a girl I knew a bit. But did not know how to get her interested in me at this time. So, I grabbed some simple pieces lying around and did do a demo with that demo kit. After 5 minutes or so, she came to my desk and invited me to… you can imagine what. No weeks of doing and trying and getting no results or a maybe result. This kind of simplicity I like.

            • It ain’t the Scientology Marty.

              You can take the thetan out of Kentucky, but you can’t take the Kentucky out of the thetan.

              For a lot of folk, it’s all about fighting the good fight over the Hubbard county line.

              Hubbard was 180 degrees away from this think. He was a city slicker and a cosmopolitan thinker. I think that cowboy hat photo restimulated some people. That was some serious out P.R. and mis positioned him in the worst light possible. Leave it up to the A and R department to fuck things up.

              Scientology was not built on that foundation. Those are just the varmits that came in a made it all patriotic.

              • They just blame it on the Scientology. “I can stab you in the back because Hubbard says…” “I can abandon my kids because Hubbard says…..” “I can withdraw my allegiance because Hubbard says….” “I can fuck people over because Hubbard says……” “Ima fly the Hubbard Flag to justify my cargo..”

                You find it in every religion. It is the curse of the enlightened. Even Heros have lice. Hubbard must have been disgusted to death when he issued that memo.

                • I know you and few others distanced yourself from him when you realized there was nobody home. But others had to be led away by armed guards to get some distance from him and more are still holding the fort for David Miscavige. He just has gifts as the Hillbilly whisperer.

    • Otto Krog,
      I will pull in your website when I get to a better poistion in space.

      However, I could not help but be reminded of A.S Eddington’s
      work on science and mysticism when I read your post.
      I don’t quite see your connection between quantum mechanics
      and Theta/Mest. The speed of light would for sure influence
      the standard model, but it would not directly influence the
      distribution of the statistical pattern. In addition,
      you say the “waves collapse in the orbit of the electron”.
      The orbit is an illusion as stated very well by Eddinton.
      Would appreciate further clarification.
      George M. White

    • The idea of dimensions made my hair stand up at the age of 8.
      Then I continued to experience the same feeling when I heard of:

      – Bent space.
      – Photons.
      – Radio signals being explained as waves.
      – Particles popping in an out of existence.
      – Probability clouds.
      – Imaginary numbers.
      etc.

      I spent quite a lot of time learning and gathering information about science since I was 8. Trying to remain ever observant.

      Ideas can be very contagious. Prior to SC I used to think of myself as someone who is very skeptic (in a healthy way). I thought I had this ability where concepts of others go in on one ear and out the other if they are incorrect or do not make sense. Despite of my ability to isolate true from false I was shocked after the Ls and OT I – IV as to how much influence I still allowed to affect my views. The effects of these aren’t CRIPPLING! Only now after OT IV am I really making some progress with my own theory. It’s still in the works but I am now convinced that particles are actually quite simple. False information is highly contagious. Given the amount of false information we have I estimated that it is impossible to figure out what’s up with the particles unless one hunts all their false information down related to this subject. The false information in our collective bank is a very good protection against anyone accidentally discovering the truth about particles. It’s impossible to grow up unaffected. Mainstream scientists are actually getting further and further away from the truth using billion dollar particle accelerators. Even a single false information is enough to derail their efforts and instead of searching for false information they are pushing the current path with even more force. I know this effect now so much. I used to think of Scientific American and such magazines as really amazing. I still do to some degree but I also think it is full of comedy. I get giggles at some of the ideas now. A single false datum can cause one to be all over the place looking for a solution. Whereas the only solution is to look for the false datum. Anything else will result in going around in circles. One false datum can and does sometimes get discovered by accident and then the solution presents itself automatically. But when you have two (false datum) the chances of accidental discovery drop to almost zero. I have already discovered five deadly false assumptions in science. One of them was the speed of light being constant. But chances are this is just one guy speaking up about it which will be suppressed over time by mainstream scientists. God forbid they should rework some of the many formulas they have learned by rote and have to actually think about them.

      I would recommend a healthy dose of skepticism in the form of verifying every bit of information you haven’t done so yet. Declare a true false information hunt as you progress up the bride and pursue with great curiosity.
      My second recommendation is to trust that initial feeling when your hear a new mind bending theory. Instead of listening to the spiel that follows and allowing it to override your initial feeling just acknowledge that something smells fishy. That way the spiel will have no effect on you.
      I would especially recommend the above two when someone considers Relativity or Quantum Physics. Its not a matter of choice between them. None of them are correct! Thou I must add my favorite mind is still Einstein. I think he had less false assumptions in the field of science than anyone recently and I admire how close he got to the truth without auditing. Only if he had gone up to OT III he would have finished his unification theory I’m sure.

      In the end – once the true unification theory is found – the mind bending thing will be the fact of how simple it is and how it was hiding in plain sight for so long.
      The unification theory which explains the nature and rules of particles perfectly will fit in a small booklet and be finitely understandable by all.

      Just my take on physics nothing else.

      • Hello again A! = A. As I was reading your reply to Otto the idea that the MEST Universe is a trap came to mind. Having that idea in mind it was instantly joined by another. And that was Byron Katie’s first question in her ‘four questions’ i.e., Is it true? And then her second question: How can you absolutely know that it’s true? Then my own question asked to myself comes up….When I think of the MEST Universe what am I desiring? Am I desiring to control it or am I desiring to leave it? Ummm….it seems I’m doing both. I do seem to have a desire to leave it but I have a consideration that in order to leave it I must first be in control of it. And in order to control it I must first come to fully understand it. And in order to come to fully understand it I have to constantly be looking at it and asking questions about it. Questions which all too often don’t have answers. And having a question without an answer = a problem. So many problems to solve. So much information to sift through and evaluate. lol! Back to Byron Katie’s first question: Is it true? Yes, I say. It’s true. If this is not a trap I don’t know what is. Now her second question: How can you absolutely know that it’s true? Easy….I’m still here!

        Now I’m asking myself, how many times have I been exactly where I am now? How many times have I been down this very path, had these very discussions, had these very cognitions and so on? How many times have I gone round this seeming never ending loop? I suspect PLENTY!

        What if the MEST Universe is a trap made as a fractal that has as its prime directive: ‘Always seek but never find’? And that any and all problems are components of a system intentionally designed to support the prime directive by keeping those caught in the trap distracted? So utterly distracted that they never see the actual truth they’re seeking? In other words, the trap is rigged so that those in it are constantly looking within the trap for their answers but all answers just lead to more questions.

        Do I believe the scenario I just described? Well, I’m not at believe yet but the more I explore this the more sense it makes to me. By the way, I did not come to this perspective on my own. As I’ve mentioned before on previous blog posts of Marty’s, I have been exploring the book, A Course in Miracles (ACIM). A book, beginning in 1965, that was supposedly dictated (took seven years) by Jesus (not the Biblical Jesus most of us are familiar with) to a lady psychologist by the name of Helen Schucman. Through this book Jesus is supposedly bringing the Atonement (the correction – the Bible didn’t get it right). Anyway, it’s one helluva a story and, for me, it’s not a book I can just breeze through. Besides being written more circular and holographic than linear, it’s a half million words or so. And, it’s so damn simple it makes it hard for me to get my wits around. It seems too that it’s perhaps one percent literal and the rest is metaphor. If anyone is curious, here’s a link to an ACIM Q&A of some magnitude:
        http://www.facimoutreach.org/ I would suggest beginning by taking a look at the topic index (you’ll find questions asked about quantum physics).

        • There are plenty of ‘what ifs’ we can make up. In a god state where one is in absolute control, one may come to wanting to play games where one surrenders total control. At that point one may start making limited copies of one self and enter into a shared universe through these copies to play. (Just another what if theory)

          • I’m beginning to believe that it’s the ‘what ifs’ that drive this universe. Another way to say ‘what if’ is to say ‘wonder about.’ And I would (and do) strongly encourage anyone to splurge on wondering about stuff. The rewards for doing so are more than can be imagined. In addition, I would also suggest that instead of worrying…wonder, instead of being fearful…wonder, instead of debating…wonder, instead of arguing…wonder, instead of competing to be the one at the top of the pyramid…wonder. Wondering about stuff or “what ifing’ will cause one’s journey to accelerate immensely!

            • I second that. However an equally important thing that is very useful (when one is in this game we call universe) is to keep the creation of the wondering in check with the real universe and see what applies and what doesn’t. This universe thingy we are in has some hard set and finitely knowable rules. The more I progress up the bridge the more certain I get about this. While I was still under the influence of mainstream scientists I used to wonder and lean towards it not being knowable. Figuring these out I think is part of the path to ‘ultimate’ truth.
              (These are general observations/opinions and not directed at you)

    • Otto,
      Had a chance to review your website. It must be exciting to be
      so “close” to the Higgs boson particle.

    • Otto,

      Essentially, you are describing our perceived reality as Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave “. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

      The question yet remains: “How much” of the infinitesimal do we need to perceive in order to understand the interaction between Theta and MEST?

      My answer is that if you keep looking you only find smaller and smaller particles because you first postulate them into existence before finding them.

      • martyrathbun09

        Are there particles at all?

        • You’re right, Marty.

          How about “Condensed ARC”?

        • That depends on how objectively you are looking at the phenomena called the universe.

        • NO, is my assumption. Everything is eaves, moving in space and time. Newton had no problem with eternal time, and infinite space. It was Einstein and his Fourth Dimension, that confused us all. Just my take on futuristic physics.

        • Yes, Particles definitely exist. No, they are not standing waves. Even the wave theory of particles assumes they are particles. It is the probability of finding them at a certain location with a certail momentum that behaves like a wave.

          • martyrathbun09

            Not necessarily, if you really look.

            • Can you elaborate? My meager understanding of QM is that the quantum wave function describes the probability of the particle. That probability has a wave characteristic. However, once you measure anything to do with the particle you collapse the wave function into that which you measure. In other words if you measure location it becomes a point. If you measure momentum (speed), it becomes a line.

              Here is the kicker, without conscieceness there is no measurement. This is where the awareness of awareness unit can, just by observation affect MEST.

              • martyrathbun09

                You have just elaborated it better than I could. That is the entire point of the post. You can observe this absent indoctrination, and subsequent belief, in the solo process. Actually outside the solo process too and, at least for me, made possible by the solo process.

                • After all, since we created it, it is inherent in us to know its nature.

                  • martyrathbun09

                    I think ‘are creating’ is more like it; but, now we are getting beyond words.

                    • Coincidentally, just yesterday I read the following from Scientology 8-8008, “Creative Processing” section:

                      “In truth, all sensation which he [the preclear] believes to come from these masses of illusory energy known as the MEST universe, are first implanted through agreement upon what he is to perceive and then perceived again by himself, with the step hidden that he has extended his own sensation to be felt and perceived by himself. He is fully convinced that the MEST universe itself has sensation which it can deliver to him, whereas all the MEST universe has is an enforced agreement which, though of no substance, yet by a gradient scale came to be an illusion which seems very masterful to a preclear.
                      […]
                      “To undo this state of affairs it is only necessary to rehabilitate the awareness of the preclear that he himself is capable of creating illusions. As he rehabilitates this faculty, the preclear, without any coaching or evaluation on the part of the auditor, begins to recognize that his viewpoint is expanding and that he is becoming all-pervasive, but that he can collect his awareness at any point, and that the “brutal reality” all around him is continuously manufactured by himself out of agreements and association with other viewpoints.”

                      Here is one on-line source for the book Scientology 8-8008: http://vinaire.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/scn-8008.pdf

              • ST – +100
                “Simplicity is the Ultimate Sophistication”
                Leonardo Da Vinci

    • As I wrote before, the Philadelphia Doctoral Course, of which 8-8008 was part of is the summit in the philosophy of Scientology.

      As far as physics goes, to understand physics one has to understand the math which the language in which physics is spoken. Everything else is mere hand waving.

      Let me make a few things clear:

      The speed of light in vacuum has not been proven variable. Every high school student knows that the speed of light in media varies. That was what LRH talked about.

      Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity are not contradicting each other.

      Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity have not yet been unified, and perhaps never will. I am not certain how important it is anyway.

      The theories of particles with or without quantum mechanics, have so far proven workable. Describing particles that are moving at close to the speed of light as standing waves just does not work mathematically.

      • Does light even have a speed? In this video, Rob Bryanton, says light has no speed.

        • He can say whatever he wants. Light has speed, it is measurable, and has been measured.

          • ST, “He can say whatever he wants.” Rob Bryanton says light has no speed. You say time does have speed. It’s all very fascinating but does it really matter? If we come to understand light will we be understanding more or less? Could be that light is an inherent insanity and by attempting to duplicate and understand it we are only attempting to duplicate and understand an insanity. We can all say what we want about light, or anything else for that matter, but where does that get us? I’ve heard it said, if it vibrates it’s an illusion. Is that true? I don’t know. Does light vibrate? Is light an illusion? In an illusion, what represents a fact? Once again, I don’t know. lol! I’m full of ‘I don’t know.’

            • Monte, that you don’t know something does not make it an insanity. Light is as much an insanity as the MEST universe is or isn’t. We know much about light, almost everything there is to know. When Maxwell wrote his equations more than 100 years ago, he gave us the theoretical tool to understand light. Light was no longer a mystery. It does not matter what some sensationalist say. The speed of light is finite and has been measured, first by Michelson, then by many, including high school students.

              You could walk into any public library and finds textbooks explaining the nature of light. Maybe then you will view with the same ridicule as me anyone saying light has no speed.

              • ST, just to clarify, I do not equate not knowing about something with insanity. What I was sort of suggesting, but doing an incredibly poor job of it, was that the MEST universe (light included) might just be the product of an insane mind (a mind that we cannot even conceive of) and therefore just a study of an inherent insanity. I know, it’s a bit ‘yin’ of me to suggest this.🙂

                ST, you wrote: “We know much about light, almost everything there is to know.” Whenever folks begin to speak in terms like this, I get a whiff of proverbial ‘crow pie’ coming from the ‘Oh do you now?’ kitchen.

                As for the idea of ridiculing anyone for whatever they’re saying or not saying, I’m just not inclined to do that anymore. I have come to consider ridicule as a tool of the ego used only to separate and divide.

                • Monte, the MEST universe if you believe LRH on it, and I do, is the product of our common agreement. If it is the product of insanity, then we are all insane (a possibility).

                  As for ridicule, I would say that when someone comes full of pomp, like Rob Bryanton, and invalidate something that has been observed by many, showing on the way ignorance of the actual phenomena, he is asking for it.

        • There are two parameters in light that characterize it: 1. It’s propagation velocity. This, in vacuum, is constant and will look the same to any observer. 2. It’s frequency (color). This changes depending on the speed of the observer. It is called Doppler Effect and it is what all radars are based on.

          This contradicts the fact that light is outside of space time. The Doppler effect has been measured repeatedly. As a matter of fact, light is a phenomena of MEST.

          LRH defines the MEST universe as the one where everyone agrees. You can actually show mathematically that once the laws of physics are the same everywhere in a universe, there will be light in that universe.

        • He is counting on Einstein being right.

          I am counting on Einstein being wrong. Time will show if I am right or wrong.

          For the moment I really don’t know, just speculating. The “Axis of Evil” from the recent Planck satellite, indicates that I might be right. See my latest “revelations” at http://www.crestroy.com

          • Actually it is not an issue of right or wrong. It is whether the theory is workable in predicting or not. So far relativity predictions are coming true. There is no doubt in my mind that in the future, we will observe phenomena that is not predicted by relativity. Then the theory will have to be extended.

          • You are ignoring or refuting the massive amount of scientific data gleaned from very logical and precise experiments which sustain Einstein’s relativity equations. No, they don’t explain the quantum effects, but that doesn’t make them wrong, just incomplete. Scientists from Hubble to the folks who did the COBE satellite all have provided substantive evidence supporting Einstein as far as he goes. The fact his equations don’t cover the “particle zoo” (as premier physicist Richard Feynman described the quantum mechanical reality) doesn’t mean they are in any way wrong.

    • Hi brother. Welcome to Marty’s blog. Love you.

  27. gretchen dewire

    Do you have to understand quantum physics to become spiritually free?

    • martyrathbun09

      I don’t think so. But I believe you can perceive what it is they are attempting to describe if you do free yourself from a three dimensional, positive-negative charge, point of reference.

    • That depends on how deep do you wish to tumble down the rabbit hole.

      • But be sure to never tell a physicist that you understand quantum physics because that is how they know you really aren’t getting it. Seriously.
        To the degree we don’t understand the underlying rules of this universe which govern the motion and interaction of particles we go the effect of them.

    • I do not see why you would.

  28. gretchen dewire

    Marty, Thankyou

  29. This blog post is great because the earth is not flat, we are not the only beings in the universe and Scientology does not contain the only workable technology to free people. For if it did, that would be very bad news to hundreds of billions of earth-like planets out there with exponentially more sentient lifeforms who are, quite likely, looking for more freedom.

    Much like the concept of Santa trying to fly to every chimney in the world to drop off toys in a single evening (impossible), LRH probably won’t be able to get to all of those planets anytime soon. He may even be on a very long vacation, for all I know.

    I’m surprised by some of the comments at the start of this thread. To think that Scientology is the only thing worth looking at is to be utterly trapped……..worse yet, by one’s own need to be right. Amazing. I would compare it to the old “burning one’s hand on the stove” analogy where they will continue to burn themselves just to be right.

  30. A Poem from the spiritual Master Yogananda
    About a transcendent state actually experienced

    Vanished the veils of light and shade,
    Lifted every vapor of sorrow,
    Sailed away all dawns of fleeting joy,
    Gone the dim sensory mirage.
    Love, hate, health, disease, life, death,
    Perished these false shadows on the screen of duality.
    Waves of laughter, scyllas of sarcasm, melancholic whirlpools,
    Melting in the vast sea of bliss.
    The storm of maya stilled
    By magic wand of intuition deep.
    The universe, forgotten dream, subconsciously lurks,
    Ready to invade my newly wakened memory divine.
    I live without the cosmic shadow,
    But it is not, bereft of me;
    As the sea exists without the waves,
    But they breathe not without the sea.
    Dreams, wakings, states of deep turiya sleep,
    Present, past, future, no more for me,
    But ever-present, all-flowing I, I, everywhere.
    Planets, stars, stardust, earth,
    Volcanic bursts of doomsday cataclysms,
    Creation’s molding furnace,
    Glaciers of silent x-rays, burning electron floods,
    Thoughts of all men, past, present, to come,
    Every blade of grass, myself, mankind,
    Each particle of universal dust,
    Anger, greed, good, bad, salvation, lust,
    I swallowed, transmuted all
    Into a vast ocean of blood of my own one Being!
    Smoldering joy, oft-puffed by meditation
    Blinding my tearful eyes,
    Burst into immortal flames of bliss,
    Consumed my tears, my frame, my all.
    Thou art I, I am Thou,
    Knowing, Knower, Known, as One!
    Tranquilled, unbroken thrill, eternally living, ever new peace!
    Enjoyable beyond imagination of expectancy, samadhi bliss!
    Not a mental chloroform
    Or unconscious state without wilful return,
    Samadhi but extends my conscious realm
    Beyond the limits of the mortal frame
    To farthest boundary of eternity
    Where I, the Cosmic Sea,
    Watch the little ego floating in me.
    The sparrow, each grain of sand, fall not without my sight.
    All space like an iceberg floats within my mental sea.
    Colossal Container, I, of all things made.
    By deeper, longer, thirsty, guru-given meditation
    Comes this celestial samadhi
    Mobile murmurs of atoms are heard,
    The dark earth, mountains, vales, lo! molten liquid!
    Flowing seas change into vapors of nebulae!
    Aum blows upon the vapors, opening wondrously their veils,
    Oceans stand revealed, shining electrons,
    Till, at last sound of the cosmic drum,
    Vanish the grosser lights into eternal rays
    Of all-pervading bliss.
    From joy I came, for joy I live, in sacred joy I melt.
    Ocean of mind, I drink all creation’s waves.
    Four veils of solid, liquid, vapor, light,
    Lift aright.
    Myself, in everything, enters the Great Myself.
    Gone forever, fitful, flickering shadows of mortal memory.
    Spotless is my mental sky, below, ahead, and high above.
    Eternity and I, one united ray.
    A tiny bubble of laughter, I
    Am become the Sea of Mirth Itself.

    • Sounds like the glee of opium to me. But I am very jaded.

      • Oraclemysticism, I can understand why it sounds like a drug trip:-)

        I think jaded can be a good thing if it is about due reflection on a thing before it is accepted.

        I usually am skeptical of New Agey things, jaded if you will. I think it is because before I accept anything into my consciousness, as true, I demand to know and understand it. And if my questions make a person angry I know this is not a subject I want to know about.

        It is one of the reasons I can be an inconvenient nudge in groups. I can be annoyingly curious in my pursuit in understanding and challenging fixed thought.

        If I ever post anything you think is bogus crap, please feel free to challenge me. Take a tip from Graduated. He’s getting real good at it!

      • Yeah, philosophical mumbo jumbo is in the eye of the beholder.

      • I AM going _______ because it is an option. Otherwise I swear, I would never dare.

      • George,
        “The orbit is an illusion as stated very well by Eddinton”
        That is too good to let it go by.
        Would you care to ellaborate on how Eddinton arrived and described his conclusion?
        I would love it. Thanks

        • Conan,
          I will need to refer to a work by Eddington which
          does not seem to have a direct link on the internet.
          I have a hard copy, however.
          The book is:

          Reality,Causation, Science and Mysticism
          by A.S. Eddington.

          Eddington was a contemporary of Einstein and a Quaker.
          He became interested in mysticism because Quantum
          mechanics and science began working with small
          particles and waves.

          One of his quotes which I remember is:

          “Reality becomes vivid when you face it”

          Eddington considered the mystic as simply one who
          is in a world of his own choosing. The orbit of the
          electron is described as a probability distribution
          which follows modern science. The mystic has simply
          penetrated reality in a different way and thus it is
          an illusion to him. Even to the scientist, the
          orbit is subject to different interpretations based
          on observation or measurement.

          Eddington says:
          Imagine an ape reaching for a branch and missing it
          and then falling to the jungle floor in a pre-historic age.
          The ape missed the “substance”.
          In modern society, man reaches for the substance
          but also misses it just like the ape. Mysticism and science
          are thus similar. The average person kicks a large
          rock and this is “proof” of reality to him.
          The mystic has changed the electron distribution
          of his brain or mind, in such a way that reality
          also changes.

          I’m going to track down the hard copy to get more
          date to you. Eddington is one of the greats.

          George M. White

          • George,

            ” The orbit of the electron is described as a probability distribution
            which follows modern science. The mystic has simply
            penetrated reality in a different way and thus it is
            an illusion to him”

            Awesome!

            I’m finally getting to a point where I feel happier about this, I’m sort of setting the issue of the Physical Universe as definitely a Process rather than an It.

            Further it seems to neither be nor not be there. Fascinating, it seems to be more magical and on demand, rather than a trap, which makes nothing out of all my cherished Serv Facs!

            Thanks

            • The mystic has dissolved the illusionary link between the observer and the observed.

              To him, what is observed is an extention of consciousness, like the dream materials in a nightime dream. Those dream forms are nothing but the projections of mind of the dreamer.

              The liberated sage sees the universe the same way we think of dreaming at night. But he is awake while dreaming if you will. And that is why the sage is fearless. He knows the cosmos is a dream of consciousness and essentially unreal.

              In Eastern metaphors the observable is nature or the Mother/Shakti aspect: Energy

              And pure consciousness or the Uncreated Absolute/Siva aspect: the Father aspect or Static/pure. The Dreamer minus the dream.

              Knower, knowing and known as one.

              • Why not just upstage all of the others in meaningless forces against the back drop of your crewmen asses demands?

                • Can you be more clear Oraclemystic, I don’t understand your post.

                • Oral, please let me know where you think I went astray in what I wrote. And elaborate, if you choose, on “crewmen asses demand”. I don’t understand that phrase.

                  Give it all you got, please express your resentment fully. If there is something I can improve in my communication, I am willing to listen and not be argumentative.

                  Ball in your court.

          • Hi George,
            Somewhere in the back of my mind Eddington really registers. I am looking forward to your update on some of his ideas. In the meantime, I’m going to follow up on my own. Thank-you for this reference.
            Vic Krohn

  31. “Stalking the Wild Pendulum” is a book from around the same time as the Tao of Physics. May be of interest here.

  32. A relevant video for this blog post: What is Time? Determinism, Quantum Physics, Consciousness, Information…

  33. Miscavige’s First Law of Motion: An object that is at rest will stay at rest until beaten to a pulp.

  34. I couldn’t resist:

  35. Marty’s blog is an intellectual flashpoint of spirituality and Science. Where fixed ideas are queried much to the chagrin of those who hold them.

    When the challenge gets too troublesome for some, they move on with the self complacent thought of “Marty is loosing it.”

    Marty is only loosing fixidity of thought and helping others do the same.

    It is possible, that with the freedom of inquiry that you all are allowing yourselves to have, the true dream of Ron’s is being realized.

    Freedom, independently knowing how to know.

    The true and freeing philosophy of auditing may be being advanced here with passionate students of the Spirit.

    I honor this pursuit!

    May we all loose our fixidity of thought. And be free to know, doubt, believe, love, study anything-anytime-anywhere, free from tyranical thought authorities!!!!!!!

    • I don’t think Marty has any specific agendas with other people’s minds. He does do a lot of third dynamic auditing here and he encourages people to search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality.Some folk get dizzy when you move them off a fixed idea though. They get vertigo.

      Here is two of them going at it. And they are both on the same page! They are both standing on fixed ideas. They are both using the Scientology to harm attack suppress somebody else. And they are both there with the purpose to restimulate the other!

      If you want to know how far Marty has lifted the subject and the responsibility level of the people curious about it, compare the dialog here with the dialog in the front yard of the Church!

      • Whatever is going on, this is the most uptoned Scientology circle I have found on the Internet. People are at “curious about” for the most part. Ethics is at “curious about”. It is granted that “in ethics” to be “curious about”. That is about as in ethics as one can get.

        “Morals have only to do with habits and customs and are to a large degree reactive, not reasonable.” L.R.H.

        DIAGNOSIS AND REPAIR OF GROUPS

        January 1951

        Group repair is actually a study of the tone scale and mental equipment of the leader of a group.

        A group is no more ethical than its system of ethics. Ethics are a direct measure of a position on the tone scale.

        A system for measuring the ethic of any individual or group could be devised from tests measuring the communication, affinity and reality

        factors of the individual. Likewise a system of measuring the ethic of a group could be devised from a study of its communication, affinity and reality factors.

        Theta is as pure as it has truth in it. The amount of Theta in a pure state in an individual or group measures the life potential and energy of the group.

        We study, in Theta, not only reason and ideals, but also the dynamic—the energy and longevity—of survival. Thus when we say “amount of Theta” we could also say “amount of reason”and “abundance of energy expended toward survival.”

        Ethics are distinct from morals. Ethics are the factors of survival as they reasonably and currently apply to the problem. Honesty, derivably, is the highest level of survival. Potential of survival can also be measured, in other words, in terms of theamount of truth discovered and applied to given problems and situations.

        Morals have only to do with habits and customs and are to a large degree reactive, not reasonable.

        On the tone scale it can be seen that survival potential drops lower and lower as communication, affinity and reality drop lower and lower. Death is no affinity, no communication, no reality and no survival.

        As one spots a group or an individual on the tone scale he can spot exact and precise reactions of ARC for that individual.

        Around two, as for communications, the individual will censor communications.Around two he has overt hostility for his affinity. Around two he has challenge,interruption for his agreement. Lower, around 1. 5, he deals with perversion of communications, hatred for his affinity and utter disagreement for his agreement(reality).

        Around 1.0 he has cut-off for communications, covert hostility for his affinityand contradiction for his agreement.

        As an individual is upon the tone scale so will he inevitably handle ARC. As a group exists on a tone scale, so will it inevitably handle ARC.

        Below 2.0, whatever his expressed intentions, the individual works as enTheta and enMEST and as the tone sinks to 1.0 will actually kill himself and other individuals or groups. He talks of death and emergencies. He advises powerful remedies for”potential death” situations.

        And although he may seem to work hard to “remedy” the situations he postulates, he will yet produce only reduced survival or death for himself, his associates or his group. He may seem to be working with the highest effectiveness,he may believe he is doing his very best and yet the end product of his endeavor will be reduced survival or death.

        Napoleon used to choose his generals on the basis of all their qualifications and one final factor, “Is he lucky?” We are possibly looking at the anatomy of luck when we look at an individual’s position on the tone scale.

        Theta will attract MEST to it. And what do we mean by luck except an x factor by which an individual or group obtains MEST with minimal effort.

        An investigation, not yet made, might demonstrate that even in gambling a man’s luckiness could be forecast by his psychometry. As the accident prone collects accidents, so does the 2.0 and below individual collect bad luck.

        Those things with which he associates break or become involved as to ownership.

        His friends seem to melt away. “Life goes against him.” A group, situated below 2.0 on the tone scale, has vast trouble with its possessions and property.

        It seems to alienate other groups. It is not lucky or prosperous. Actually, in both cases,the suicide spiral has been entered and the actions of the life cycle tend to require that the individual or the group commit suicide. EnTheta, once in action, contages its turbulence into other Theta and organized MEST and when enough can be generated death can take place and another cycle can be begun, a new individual, a new group.

        The death of an individual or the death of an enterprise or nation follows this spiral toward suicide. The way stations are the points of action on the ARC survival tone scale. Look at the points of action for affinity on the tone scale, or for reality or for communication, and you can see how much inclined toward death for the individual or the group will be the actions of that individual or group.

        Reversing the viewpoint, by spotting the position of the individual on the tone scale or by spotting the position of the group by what he or it does with ARC, one can see the survival potential of the group in terms of energy and longevity.

        Thus, we could see, for instance, that an administrator favored secrecy in his dealings, that he practiced cruelty on individuals of a group but masked the cruelty under “necessity,” that he altered or suppressed every plan submitted to him—one could spot him on the tone scale at about 1.1. One could see immediately that the organization would be inclined toward death and that it would fail. Actually, the very measures he may so convincingly postulate to answer up to “emergencies” will bring failure and disaster.

        The effect upon a group of any individual of that group depends upon the altitude the individual holds with the group. A person holding a command post with a group may have as much or more weight on the group than the combined members of the group unless a system is devised which gives more stature to the individual members themselves.

        A group, then, alert to bring about the highest level of survival for the group, to conquer for it the maximum amount of MEST, should be alert to the position on the tone scale of the leaders of that group. The group itself can deduce the position of a leader on the tone scale by the way he handles ARC.

        The highest quality leader who would bring the most to the group would handle ARC in a nearly pure state. He would work toward open and clean communication lines. He would attempt to effect the greatest affinity amongst the group and with the group. He would act only with the highest level of agreement with the group.

        And hewould pay the strictest attention to the ethics of the group.

        As we have both terror and fear at the same point on the tone scale, we can see that there is a difference of intensity for any point on that scale. This is like the question of pitch and volume in music. The point on the scale would compare to pitch. The volume of the note would compare to the amount of Theta energy or enTheta energy present at that point.

        Thus, a group must also be alert for the energy of an administrator—in other words, his dynamic potential in terms of volume. A group could have a very high Theta leader who was high in tone scale point only but who had no volume of energy to offer. Searching for energy volume a group may often mistake MEST force for Theta power in a man.

        True a man who can become very energetically high Theta can, during moments of turbulence, become large volume enTheta, but his volume will only direct at enTheta, not Theta. There is another characteristic of personality, like “quality” in music, which has to do with the caliber or workability of the reasoning of the leader.

        High Theta and high volume of energy and high quality of reason combine into excellent leadership.

        That group which values its survival as a group at all would do well to learn group-necessity-value and how to express it. The group can bring all pressure toward any leader or sub-leader to effect the highest ARC possible. Then each member of the group can perform his duties in the most efficient and prideful manner possible. And each group member should act to maintain high ARC in the internal organization.

        This can raise group tone to a point where group tone raises individual tone and the climbing survival level complements itself interactively. A volume of energy at a high tone level,once attained, operates with a kind of velocity. Given so much impetus it thereafter
        maintains itself and begins to gather more volume and higher tone as an automatic action. Like the ram jet which, at the speed of sound has attained almost perpetual motion and constant speed, so can a group, by artificially attaining necessity level,begin an automatic, self-supporting rise in the group volume and tone.

        This point is very high but is worth striving for since an individual in such a group soars up the tone scale as a direct result.

        LRH😉 Tim, Hope this helps.

      • OMG. This guy looks like he came out of “The Walking Death” or The Zombie Apocalyspsis.

        Memo to David Miscavige: have Scientologists study and actually understand Dianetics 55!

        They might find out that communication has something to do with this sublject.

      • I LOVE ANONSPARROW

      • AnonKat is the bomb at weeding out dishonesty

  36. It is little known that, at the same time when Lao Tzu and his followers developed their world view, the essential features of the Taoist view were taught also in Greece, by a man whose teachings are known only in fragments and who still is, often misunderstood.

    This Greek “Taoist” was Heraclitus of Ephesus. He shared with Lao Tzu not only the emphasis on continuous change, which he expressed in his famous saying “Everything flows,” but also the notion that all changes are cyclic. He compared the world order to “an ever-living fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures,” an image which is indeed very similar to the Chinese idea of the Tao manifesting itself in the cyclic interplay of yin and yang.

    The concept of change as a dynamic interplay of opposites led Heraclitus, like Lao Tzu, to the discovery that all opposites are polar and united. “The way up and down is one and the same,” he said, and “God is day night, winter summer, war peace, satiety hunger.” Like Taoists, he saw any pair of opposites as a unity: “Cold things warm themselves, warm cools, moist dries, parched is made wet” remind us strongly of those of Lao Tzu, “Easy gives rise to difficult… resonance harmonizes sound, after follows before.” Heraclitus is often mentioned in connection with modern physics, but hardly ever in connection with Taoism.

    Even though Taoism is compared with modern physics, a domain of thought per excellence, Taoism is not a domain of thought. Taoism emphasizes all that is intuitive, feminine, mystical, and yielding. “Not knowing that one knows is best,” says Lao Tzu, and “The sage carries on his business without action and gives his teachings without words.” The Taoists believed that by displaying the feminine, yielding qualities of human nature, it was easiest to lead a perfectly balanced life in harmony with the Tao. “Those who follow the natural order flow in the current of the Tao.” Chuang-tzu’s description of the ancient Taoist paradise is quite telling (and appealing..): “The men of old, while the chaotic condition was yet undeveloped, shared the placid tranquility which belonged to the whole world. At that time the yin and yang were harmonious and still; their resting and movement proceeded without any disturbance; the four seasons had their definite times; not a single thing received any injury, and no living being came to a premature end. Men might be possessed of the faculty of knowledge, but they had no occasion for its use. This was what is called the state of perfect unity. At this time, there was no action on the part of anyone but a constant manifestation of spontaneity.”

    I long for this age to come back…….The good news is that I, we all, can help make it happen..

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks. The Tao of Physics gives a nice summation of those parallels between Heraclitis and Lao Tzu.

  37. Brian,

    Amen.

    Words of pure sanity.

    Like breathing fresh air after coming out of a stenchy dungeon.

    If you see the Budda on the road, kill him.

    Dio

    • Dio, I think I’d prefer inviting him in for tea and cookies.

      • Brian,

        Maybe you are just joking or maybe you did not get my point. Or maybe you do not know about the book.

        In any event:

        The line: If you see the Budda on the road, kill him.

        Means something like this line I got off another blog on the subject:
        :
        “If you meet someone who claims to have all the answers (regardless of subject)get away from them and continue learning on your on or from various teachers.”

        And this from the Tao:

        “If you over esteem great men,
        people become powerless.”

        Dio

  38. More physics:

    I think waves belong in the pool and such.
    Let me elaborate:

    There is the macro world that which we can see and observe directly and then there is the atomic scale world.
    All current theories that I know of have one or more assumptions which are based on the macro/cosmic world.
    Waves in pool (or paddle or ocean) = electromagnetism must have waves.
    When we look out onto the moons, planets, stars, and galaxies we see orbiting = particles must be orbiting.
    When we see gravity everywhere on the macro scale = particles must have gravity
    So on so forth.
    Assumptions are not good.
    When one can eliminate them all from a particular subject the resolution will present itself ‘out of nowhere’.

  39. Tom Gallagher

    Maybe I’m off-base here, but I’ve looked at all of this as simple, or convoluted, or even complex considerations.

    The key concept is ‘considerations’ and the ability to making them disappear or better yet be relegated to a relative positioning.

    As-is-ness is a means to freedom on a human and especially a spiritual plain. I especially like definition 1. from the tech dictionary:

    1. the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival. 9PXL), pg. 154.

    • Tom Gallagher

      The conundrum, for us human beings, is that we don’t know what we are.

      • Below which is the false idea one can shed that we are something and arrive to “we are” or “I am” period. Then one can work on stripping down the “we” and the “I” and realize simple isness under it all. Taking the I out of the “I” brings so many cognitions. One of which is that the question “what we are” makes no sense any more. Asking what we are in reality makes no more sense than asking “what kind of a human is the Sun?”

  40. Marty, has evolved into a remarkable forum. You and your creation serve as a beautiful demo of the law of attraction. It is uplifting to visit and engage here. I am very fortunate to have a circle of friends and that circle, of course, includes yourself and all those that share, discuss and debate on your blog, that; without having a need, want, desire or compulsion to change one another’s mind or interfere with another’s trajectory in life, can come together to openly, and void of onerous restrictions, wonder about all manner of stuff. Thus, stretch our perspectives for all they’re worth. I consider this circumstance, not money or physical possessions, as the wealth I have created for myself in this particular life pilgrimage. Thank you and everyone here for being involved.

    ~Monte

  41. Another long lost LRH quote comes to mind,

    The goal of processing is to bring an individual in to such a thorough communication with the physical universe that he can regain the power and ability of his own considerations (postulates).

  42. There are lots of technology advancements and research on this field. But, also, there is starting to be legislation against forced chip implanting in humans.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_implant_(human)#Legislation

  43. You are a nothingness with the ability to postulate and to perceive.
    When you realize this you can be anything.
    I feel the highest purpose is to take responsibility for the space you are in and make it, if possible, a place where happiness and spiritual growth can occur.
    I suppose I am just being to simplistic.

    • Yay!🙂 From my perspective, what you said is way more essential than all the case mechanics an auditor/CS can ever know about.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s