Effect and Cause

Aristotelian and Newtonian two-valued, space-time logic  philosophy and science are demonstrated to be essentially of a mind construct basis by developments in quantum mechanics and the related fledgling field of science of consciousness.   Those historical three-dimensional views were popular for a couple thousand years because they proved so workable in taming the wild, creating material comforts, and suppressing and killing competitors for those comforts (fundamental motives driving the evolution of civilization).  Aristotle and Newton were not only worshipped by scientists for centuries, their theories were ruthlessly enforced on society by the predominant Western church as it considered their theories ‘proved’ that an anthropomorphic God was at the center of the universe who set the whole frenzied cosmos in motion.  Having monopolized the communication channels to God, a tremendous continually increasing fortune was at stake in promoting those views.  That binary thinking remains a mainstay of social darwinists today who preach ‘survival of the fittest’ or as Hubbard’s mentor Aleister Crowly put it ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law’ to justify their rapacity and greed.

This is not to say Aristotle and Newton were not pillars in humankind’s evolution toward greater understanding.  In fact, few compare to their contributions.  It is to say, however, wisdom and understanding like life itself continually evolve.   And that mental and spiritual philosophies grounded in limited logic are to some degree obsolete.  Just as many of Newton’s and Aristotle’s principles are defied and transcended by nuclear and quantum physics (whose breakthroughs at least 70% of our economy is based upon), so are those of the mental and spiritual philosophies based upon  their systems of thought.

In the traditional Cartesian (strict mind vs. matter view, as validated and supported by Aristotelian and Newtonian thought) construct, in the beginning there was a cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of an effect; and we are all more or less the effect of the resultant infinity of cause-effect sequences.   Therapies that promise to wed one or return one to the native, original cause in all this set themselves up for lifetime income from clients/adherents.  Their ‘why traps’ are outfitted with an infinity of divining in the never-ending cause-effect sequences.  It is akin to charging a squirrel for running in a wheel for eternity when modern science has demonstrated that ‘cause’ isn’t any more important than ‘effect’ and that in ultimate reality (read beyond the traditional five animal senses) does not even necessarily precede it.

If this sounds intuitively similar to the ideas you may have experienced in studying Buddhism or the words of Lao Tzu, others have too.   Many have written about that correlation.  The most easy to follow and enjoyable to read for me has been Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics.  Any mind yet somewhat intact after years of adhering to scientology sci-fi mythology as cold, hard reality, still has the potential for seeing through the self-limiting constructs it has been persuaded to abide.  The greatest difficultly with that is getting the person to give ‘the highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect’ a rest for a moment. That is followed by the next greatest difficulty which is getting the person to spend a little time learning of the evolution of thought on planet earth.  The Tao of Physics, again, is a great – relatively easy to follow – place to start on that score.  There is not a single generic phenomenon (unpatentable) that Hubbard attempted to monopolize by complicating and masquerading with his inimitable, sci-fi fanasty universe view that is not explained in simple, scientifically-supported terms by Capra.

One last word of advice.  Should absorbing intellect not crippled by compliance to two-value logic prove impossible for the binary thinking scientologist, a primer may be in order.  The End of Suffering by Russell Targ and J.J. Hurtak gives a wonderful introduction to four-valued logic, the real thing Hubbard began to introduce – but ultimately eschewed in scientology – under the heading of ‘infinity logic’.

1,007 responses to “Effect and Cause

  1. This blog becomes increasingly interesting. I’ll pick up those books.

  2. What initially attracted me to Scientology was a promised adventure into the mystery of the nature of the cosmos and the human condition. In the long run it led into the box canyon of KSW and I had to part ways with that group, but your recent posts are rekindling that spirit of adventure. Thank you, Marty.

  3. Marty
    Your thoughts and points are a bit hard for me to follow in this post.
    Maybe it’s me. My writings are usually pointed in one direction, but I enjoy and usually understand many directions of thought. I’ll go over it a couple more times.
    Granny and Uncle Jed made sure I graduated the sixth grade, so I shouldn’t be having trouble. I’ll have a mess a greens and hog jowls and think it over.
    Mark

    • This is deep.. My problem is that I came in to late in the evening when I am absolutely brain dead. PLus it doesn’t help that I am totally a right brain thinker. Sigh. This isn’t exactly my forte.

      I do wish I hadn’t flirted all the way through Physics with my professor. I did get an A, because he flirted back! sigh I learned nothing!

      But tomorrow I will sit down and read it slowly when my brain is awake.

      • And then will you parse it down for me?

        The only part I understand the The Tao of Physics. Read that book in college, I think.

        • I will look for The Tao of Physics for Dummies for myself outraged. And until I totally ( well not totally ) understand this thread I will lurk,

          I took a course on Non Western Religion in college in the 70s. I love to be interested in various subjects.

          That said connections between Eastern philosophy and modern physics just isn’t a passion for me. But I will keep an open mind. Maybe I can learn something through osmosis.

        • What if the Hokey Pokey really is What It is All About?

  4. Scientology treats the sequence of cause-effect as linear. But it is not so. Cause-effect or more like a multi-dimensional matrix of points in cause-effect relationship.

    A simple cause-effect relationship may be looked upon as a single event with first part transforming into the second part.

    The complex cause-effect matrix may be looked upon as a sphere with the surface of the sphere being points of initiation of activity and the effects propagating inwards.

    >

  5. Well Mark you fell into the same trap as millions of TV
    viewers did….they became enamored and secretly guided into believing
    that the enforced theories of hillbilly millionaires were gospel and
    the only true path to wealth and happiness.
    Jethro and Elly Mae spent their time trying to dispel this enforcement
    by not living as millionaires and transcending the strict constructs of
    hillbillyism set forth by Granny and Jed. They saw beyond the horizon
    and saw there was much more to life and that they could create effects
    on their own terms not necessarily in any order and could be very happy
    and content. Now the banker, Mr. Drysdale did not like this because this
    point of view threatened the time honored (forced) one way tradition of
    the handling (bilking) of large amounts of money in the hands of binary thinking hillbillys from Tennessee where, of course, ignorance abounds.

  6. no,no my dear ..you run a wrong concept of being .. you are able to ignore cause and effect .. but how to do it ..

  7. Integrally informed context.

    😊

  8. One’s trajectory into and out of Scientology is relative to one’s perception of cause and effect, warp and woof, fabric . . .

  9. As Eileen noted above, the blog just becomes more interesting. As Aeolus noted, this is rekindling purposeful, free inquiry and adventure. And I very much like (and intuitively agree with) Vinaire’s description of a complex cause-effect matrix.

    I’ve been thinking about Scientology’s definition of truth — from memory, something like the exact time, place, form, and event. In this universe, time and place are relative. Form is an illusion — a mental construct in many ways. Maya or samsara. And event? Any event cannot be fully understood without taking into account meaning and context, and on that note Scientology is entirely lacking. Say a PC was abused as a child. Will “running” the incident repetitively and asking the PC to remember (or even mock up) earlier similar incidents resolve the damage? Probably not, whereas “wog” therapy would apply what we know about family dynamics, relative power, domination, developmental stages, child rights, and much more — knowledge that Scientology shuts itself off from. The result? In some cases, the revictimization of someone who now believes they were responsible for their own abuse by somehow “pulling it in” and the justification of child abuse by adult Scientologists who believe that children are just ancient thetans in young bodies.

    Scientology has excluded hard won knowledge about human relationships, has adopted a definition of truth that is unviable in terms of physics and psychology, has failed to understand cause and effect and the role of perception and interpretation of meaning, and has thus set loose the ancient dogs of totalitarian belief in a new “religion.”

    Thank you for your blog and all its insights and provoking topics.

    • Thanks for the insightful comment.

      • Marty effect and cause? This is the tone level of the Church of Scientology’s members: “I have mental problems with you I didn’t have originally but I am fine now, OK?” You know something Marty, it has always been OK with me, I don’t know about them? It reminds me of those crazy Squirrel Busters® people. No wonder there are so few of them.🙂 Have a flourshing and prosperous Labor Day weekend.

    • FOTF2012: ”I’ve been thinking about Scientology’s definition of truth — from memory, something like the exact time, place, form, and event. In this universe, time and place are relative. Form is an illusion — a mental construct in many ways. Maya or samsara. And event? Any event cannot be fully understood without taking into account meaning and context, and on that note Scientology is entirely lacking…”

      Very well said; and a nice example too.
      .

      • Hubbard is fading faster than Einstein.

      • Vin, here’s something for you to contemplate since you are an engineer and have considerations about absolutes and consistency – all three of which are mentioned in this lecture.transcript excerpt. You and FOTF2012 both may change your minds about scientology being “entirely lacking in taking into account meaning and context.” Here is a different definition of truth than the one FOTF2012 referred to – which I believe was used in another context.

        ———————————–
        “…very funny thing about the whole deal is, is that the engineer cannot obtain an absolute anywhere. And the harder he works, he just can’t obtain an absolute. He’s almost there, on any one of his natural laws, but not quite.

        “Fortunately, there is never a hundred percent agreement. There’s always a hole in the natural law. There’s always a hole in the atom, always a hole in the structure. Uh… he starts into the actual complexity of this matter, and does he become complexed. He is complicated beyond measure because its consistency and so forth keeps shifting under his hands as he examines it. Now he… he becomes very puzzled after a while.

        “You know, it’s a strange thing that the search after truth, then, could lead some men to disaster and some to glory.

        “It could lead uh… Newton into great renown. It could lead Hegel into disrepute. It could lead uh… Lenin into an early tomb. They’re all going after what? Different kinds of a datum.

        “A truth is something which would exist without much contest, something which is triumphant. A champion who stands up after a battle with bloodied shield and sword and yet has won is himself truth in the force universe. A datum which itself sweeps all data before it, in another universe, is truth. It is that which works. And that which works most broadly to that which it is applied.

        “Don’t have pity upon some of your preclears who are still scrambling in some direction and haven’t ever classified the field of truth in which they’re searching for the truth. Some are searching for it in the MEST universe, and some are searching for it out in the stars, and some are searching for it in their own hearts, and others are searching for it in the lives of great men. And sure enough, they will, every one of them, find a truth. And all they need to do to find the ultimate truth, is simply find the winning truth by which all other truths proceed in that field.” (PDC-19 AXIOMS AND LOGICS FURTHER DATA)

        • Excerpt from “The builders and Large Common Universes. MNR
          .”…….the games universes era. (Possibly the longest era of our past existence. A time when systems of MEST were designed and built by individuals and groups for entertainment (games) and aesthetics (galleries).) An explosion of creativity and diversity lasting for, well, almost forever. Interaction and activity galore. Every kind of existence you and the rest of us could imagine. An interactive carnival of varying systems of existence the likes of which make the large common universes of late seem mundane in the extreme.

          But like an oppressive teacher in a 19th century British classroom, a few decided that what was needed, what was correct, was a completely controlled, extremely ordered, nice and quiet environment. The thought that anyone or any group could build their own universe with whatever rules they wished, and invite friends or even passersby to come and play or even add to the creativity, just wouldn’t do. We can’t have that.

          So they built ever larger and more orderly spaces with ever stricter rules. They told us it was more “fair” for everyone. No more confusion. No more having to learn new rules as you went from one space to the next. Made sense at the time. And you were coerced and tricked, and eventually punished into believing that this was the way to go, the right thing to do. And a few, armed with a knowledge of considerations, opinions, desires, fears that most of us had built up and forgotten during our past, carefully guided us into these traps, convinced this was the best way to go.

          The large common universes, like this one.

          But that wasn’t their only intent, to make life better for us all. They “knew” they were smarter and superior to the rest of us and it was up to them to decide how things were going to be. And THEY should be in charge. The average guy wasn’t worthy. Only they had the wisdom and ability to control everything. And as a bonus, they would be respected, revered, feared and looked upon as, dare we say it, Gods. The Masters of the Universe. Total communism on a scale difficult to even comprehend.

          Not only that, we were carefully and cleverly dumbed down to a point where this all seemed acceptable to us. We would squabble and argue over the nature of a photon while they would laugh and pass judgment over our activities, for our own (and especially their own) good…….”

          MEST universe “truth” is an invented thing which is then promoted for a particular purpose of the inventor. Even the most basic truths of life and spirituality have an origin for a purpose, and are subject to change.
          My observations.
          Mark

          • The Swedes, who used to be among the fierce people known as Vikings, were at some point in their history Christianized. I don’t know if this is derived from that, but now they have a saying that guides their social behavior: “The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.”
            I wonder if the Hindus have something similar?

            • Val said:
              The Swedes…..now have a saying that guides their social behavior.“The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.”

              “The squeaky wheel gets the oil.”.?.?. or If you point out outpoints, you get punished for it. or If one stands up and makes himself known, he gets pushed back down.

              Or is it simply Keep them in their place.? as related to my excerpt.
              Mark

          • Mark,
            It sounds like a perfect description of Scientology to me.

            • Oh, by the way. If you ever make a mistake and someone points it out, and punishes you, either verbally or physically, and you say “Yea, your right, I deserve it.” Dig into that thought right away. Making amends or making things right is perfectly fine, it’s a win. But ‘deserve’ is a false, invented idea used to make someone wrong or make them less. Agreeing with it is a hole that you dig a little bit deeper each time you do.
              Today’s tech tip.
              Mark

          • Mark, what I love about your essays is that they are based on LOOKING, rather than conjecture. Now, some may say that you looking at your own record of the past doesn’t count because it isn’t objective, but it is a record nevertheless. And the interesting thing is that others have essentially the same subjective records or else “intuited” the same understandings. The above essay of yours reminded me so much of what Cameron Day has to say. Here’s one of his best blog posts: http://www.ascensionhelp.com/blog/2013/08/23/why-i-am-no-longer-a-light-worker/

            • Marildi.
              Light worker, keepers of darkness, Satan, Lucifer, Benevolent Gods.

              I have not looked at this directly, but it appears like what has been going on for a very long time. Control games, energy whores. A few individuals weasel their way into a position of power and try to f##$ everyone over. Those who need and usurp life energy from others are pretty bad off.

              I recall a similar scam going on some time ago. A group set themselves up as the givers of pain and pleasure. The sensations involved were similar to a tough guy saying “Hit me harder, I can take it. Yea, feels good, harder. That’s more like it.” And then goes and sits in a hot tub with a couple of hookers. Adrenalin junkies, sensation seekers would get really addicted and the givers would keep them going, living off the sensations of their addicted captives. Their ‘adrenalin’ was keeping people under their thumb.

              Old scam, new techniques. The guys running the show over in the systems toward Orion’s Belt, about 23, 25 lt. yrs. out have one going. Perfect order, harmony. But it is locked down tight. No dissent.

              If you run into similar things on your track, just go earlier/similar and pay attention to desire for order, authority, pleasure, punishments, and then look at exchange. Exchange seems to be a basic, natural part of beingness, interaction, but it too has a beginning and can become obsessive, aberrated.
              Mark

          • Was LRH dramatizing all this?

            • Hi Vin, good to talk to ya.
              I don’t know what Hub. was dramatizing. I never read or heard of Ron saying much or anything about this era. (Perhaps in materials I haven’t gone over.) The Pilot described this time in a manner most closely related to this, but I recollected this before reading his account. Some of the things he described, I have no recall about. Many of the things I recall are not in his write up.

              One thing I have never seen properly described is the, well, the appearance and flavor of memories during periods of not being attached to a body or not being entrapped in a meat body or doll body. Vision is different, it is not exactly directed at one thing at a time. Color seems to be a matter of choice or suggestion. Also, I ‘feel’ the imprinted emotion or intent of MEST objects. Everything has an intent or purpose given to it by whomever put it together. That ‘feel’ remains after the original owner is gone off to do something else.

              The ‘feel’ of things were given to them to make them more interesting and ‘alive’. It was a game to make the most interesting things and spaces. It was a fun sort of competition.

              Early on, I would spread out and ‘Be’ the things I was viewing and experiencing. Later, it became more like putting out vision beams. Instead of letting the light come to you, you went out and looked at the things and spaces. Light came later. Eventually these vision beams became sub conscious and automatic. How to really look was eventually forgotten. Some individuals didn’t like others being able to see and experience so easily, so they developed hidden ways of stunting these abilities in others. These methods eventually stunted them as well.

              Impact and overwhelm wasn’t painful or unpleasant. It was fun, like riding a roller coaster or going through a spook house. There were horrors and terrors beyond belief by today’s standards, but we would laugh and go through these spaces over and over. Hunting expeditions and battles were quite popular in later years. Multi dimensional spook houses were also big draws.

              These were the ‘Good Ole Days’ but many opinions, pleasures, and considerations were being formed which later became sub conscious liabilities. They were forgotten and so stuck. These are the subtle thoughts I am most interested in now. I’m having fun.
              Mark

              • Mark, I can see that this material is useful to you. Can some kind of a process be derived from this information to help others? Does it lay to rest some common confusions?

            • Yes, he built Scientology per his Games Theory in the PDC and other lectures on how to build universes.

              Hubbard is the unforgiving GOD of the Scientology Universe.

              “Abandon hope all ye who enter here.”

        • Excerpt from Relativity and Frequency. MNR
          “……In any space, whether physical or mental, for interaction to occur, there has to be common ground, common rules, a common environment. If we want to play pitch, distance has to be the same for you as for me. The width of the ball, the speed of flight etc. must be understood and common to all. Otherwise there is confusion, inconsistency, NO GAME. If every time you threw the ball it traveled 50mph and every time your friend threw the ball and it traveled 1000mph, you would of course say “Screw this, I’ll go someplace else to play.” (An actual incident.)

          The speed of light is one of the most basic laws of the universe which make up this common ground. That is well understood. It is fast enough that in normal interaction it is instant. When all things in a closed environment operate at a pace that does not approach this speed, there is no problem with their interactions. Go left, go right, go forward, backward, no difference in operations. EVERYTHING IS FAIR FOR ALL. This is fine for a small space.

          But when spaces became large, very large, and relative motions became so great at large distances, this rule of the speed of light based on the entire space did not work. The larger the space, the more it became skewed from one side to the next. For gravity to work on a large scale, constant velocities had to be great, great enough that the change in the speed of light from one direction compared to the other was noticeable. (This relates to orbits around stars and galaxies. As orbiting bodies come toward and then away from any agreed upon ‘center‘ of the universe, light and motion would be skewed according to that difference.) In an effort to build larger universes where more and more people could play, so that the builders could have more power and control over larger groups and environments, there had to be a solution. (This point would be an entire set of OT levels on its own.)

          The solution was simple, it solved several problems, and caused only a few others. Do away with the notion of motion being relative to the entire space and make it an individual thing. Make it so that the law works the same for your immediate environment, no matter where in the universe you are or how it is moving compared to the universe as a whole. THIS ALLOWED FOR INFINITE EXPANSION. There were a few details to work out but it worked perfectly as long as you kept your viewpoint relatively small. ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THIS DESIGN.

          But there had to be some common control mechanism for this law of the land, this basic construct. And that was vibration, frequency, wavelength. But wait, frequency is a measure of time, not speed. WEEELLLLL, we’ll just kill 2 birds with one stone. Anything moving at a certain speed and vibrating a certain speed will travel a certain distance with each oscillation. Wavelength. Time and space tied together. Space-time. And we had a lot of experience with frequencies. It had long been used as the most common method of communication between individuals in a physical space. Give every basic particle a certain emotion (frequency) that is recognizable to all that will orient everyone to the space they are in.

          We will do this by making all basic particles have a constant velocity of ‘C’. (Speed of light.) (This comes from the theory that all basic particles Must Always be in motion at ‘C’ in one manner or another.) Different particles will have different frequencies. Particles vibrating at lower freqs. will travel farther between oscillations and will be larger. This will give them different properties. Massive particles will vibrate in 3 dimensions. Mass-less particles will vibrate in 1 dimension and, when released, travel in a straight line at ‘C’. Massive particles traveling at speeds relative to the observer will have their wavelengths stretched out due to the greater total distance traveled, left to right, between oscillations. This will lower the apparent freq. to the stationary observer. But to the observer traveling at speed, the distance between oscillations remains the same, and he orients his time reference to particle vibrations in his space.

          Oh, a few problems would pop up such as machines that operated beyond the normal rates of experience. Different lights bending at different angles, but these were minor and actually became interesting and useful. Several things were accomplished. Space and time worked the same no matter where you were since your operating rules were based on your viewpoint. Peoples viewpoint was kept small, since things got skewed over vast distances. Peoples operating speed was kept slow since things became confusing at extreme speeds. The laws of MEST were complicated enough so that the average guy couldn’t really get a handle on it. Only the builders could “Know” how things really worked. Keep everyone happy, keep everyone in his place, keep all a little bit confused. Keep them under control and believing that you are the smartest guy around, the boss. GOD. A near perfect system…….”

          Vibration and speed are the two constructs which orient one to the space he is in and allow him to interact smoothly with others.
          Mark

          • There are more recent articles, but I found this interesting. Just he part about he universe expanding much faster than light, when the Big bang occurred.
            Google for “gravitational waves” for more.
            http://time.com/24894/gravity-waves-expanding-universe/

            • Read it twice, very narrow.
              Working through Tao of Physics right now, between work and past examination. Looking at past ethics, multi flows, is so revealing. Real ethics, not Hubbard or western justice.
              Mark
              PS, re read my comment to T.O on agreement and authority. There is a lot there and a lot more to discover. It crosses many areas of activity. Just the tip of an iceberg.
              Mark

              • Mark, what to you is “real ethics”?

                • Hi Marildi.
                  Ethics, for me, started off very simple, and stayed that way ever since.

                  Optimum survival across the dynamics. As LRH mentioned, “it is a personal thing”. It is YOUR 1st dyn., YOUR 2nd dyn., YOU groups etc. Justice, enforcement, assigning conditions have no place in ethics. Assistance and learning does. An Ethics Officer, working with individuals, should be more like a Course Sup. Conditions by Dynamics is an excellent exercise. “Assigned conditions” is a huge outpoint. A Case Sup. might say to an individual, “I’ve noticed that you have been having some trouble with …… Here, this may help”. (Hand him some data on ethics,)

                  If a person does not recognize that he is operating from a certain condition in an area of life, and doesn’t recognize that certain actions will improve his conditions, then his state WILL NOT IMPROVE. I considered Ethics tech similar to auditing tech from the start, when I was 13 yrs. old. I never liked that the Ethics book had an authority figure on the cover.

                  If a person has demonstrated that he is a clear and present danger to a group, then explain it to him and OFFER him some assistance. If his efforts to become an asset are unsuccessful, or not genuine, then inform him and get someone else to do the job. Offer him further assistance if desired.

                  I’m not bragging, just telling people how I see it, and when I saw it.
                  Mark

                  • PS: I believe that if more people had this viewpoint on ethics,(that is, until one gets to the point when he no longer needs a viewpoint) things would be a lot better. Generally speaking.
                    Mark

                  • “Ethics” conditions are fine, but assignment of them by another is a justice action, and subject to proper assessment by another and not by decree. Hubbard messed up by forwarding this idea of assignment of conditions.

                    • I agree Vin. “My” Ethics book was the original, 1971 edition I think it was. Even that had too many”rewards and penalties” in it for my taste.
                      I think the Ethics materials should be published completely separately from any “Justice” policies and materials.
                      It could certainly be noted that the Justice policies are based on the understandings in the Ethics materials(if they really are), but it should be made clear that “Justice” are specific applications. I guess we kinda agree on the better apperoach anyway. Hubbard just broadly conflated them in relation to “survival of the CoS”. Or something like that.

                    • I think that the largest amount of aberration lies in the area of ethics and justice. This is so with Hubbard and Scientology too.

        • FLAVP: “Vin, here’s something for you to contemplate since you are an engineer and have considerations about absolutes and consistency – all three of which are mentioned in this lecture.transcript excerpt. You and FOTF2012 both may change your minds about scientology being “entirely lacking in taking into account meaning and context.” Here is a different definition of truth than the one FOTF2012 referred to – which I believe was used in another context.”

          Marildi, I shall look at this transcript, but I don’t understand why are you so stuck with defending Scientology. Scientology is a mixture of ideas. It is not one coherent thing. If a datum is right in Scientology, it does not make whole of Scientology right. Or if a datum is wrong in Scientology, it does not make whole of Scientology wrong.

          I have recently acknowledged what is right in Scientology in the essay Inconsistency in KHTK. It actually provides a fundamental datum in the KHTK system.

          It makes me actually wonder, “What confusion in you is being restarined by Scientology?” You seem to be very afraid about Scientology being proven wrong. If Scientology is proven wrong would you be overwhelmed by some confusion?

          But that is not going to happen because there are some wonderful observations in Scientology.

          .

          • Vinaire: “I don’t understand why are you so stuck with defending Scientology. .. If a datum is right in Scientology, it does not make whole of Scientology right.”

            I never said the whole of Scientology is right. What occurred was that FOTF2012 made a statement about Scientology – and you agreed – which I felt was incorrect, and then I gave a quote to show the basis of my view. I don’t see why you would conclude that I’m any more stuck with defending than those who criticize are stuck with stating their criticisms.

            • Marildi, you are too complex for me.

              • You mean when it isn’t possible to refute my point?🙂

                • I don’t play those games. Debate is not my thing. Understanding is. I don’t get any understanding from you.

                  • Okay, then according to “Discussion Policy” how should you reply to what you don’t understand, or to what you think I don’t understand?

                    • I know for sure the response should not be to focus on participants, right?

                    • According to discussion policy you lay out your argument clearly. It is not clear to me what did i agree with FOTF that your disagreeing with. Could you please summarize it.

                      Thanks.

                    • I already did summarize it . Look again at my comment above, the one you replied to with, “Marildi, you are too complex for me” (which, by the way, is an example of one of the many times you have focused on me, the participant, in violation of your own policy).

                    • Marildi, this is what you said:
                      ”I never said the whole of Scientology is right. What occurred was that FOTF2012 made a statement about Scientology – and you agreed – which I felt was incorrect, and then I gave a quote to show the basis of my view. I don’t see why you would conclude that I’m any more stuck with defending than those who criticize are stuck with stating their criticisms.”

                      It doesn’t tell me what statement FOTF made that I agreed with and how you felt it was incorrect. You have a habit of quoting long quotes from LRH instead of simply stating your argument. Now I prefer not to guess anything. This is by no means a summarization.

                      Now I am not going to waste my time with you until you properly summarize it.

                • working hypothesis: OSA pays m. by the word

                  .

            • Marildi says..” I don’t see why you would conclude that I’m any more stuck with defending than those who criticize are stuck with stating their criticisms.”

              I can not speak for all critics so I will speak for myself. Marildi.. I don’t know who you are. I know who Hubbard is. I know what he has said. I know his technology. I have done my homework.

              I have read Marty. I enjoyed ” Memoirs” the best. Had I not loaned it to someone I would reread it again. I study human behavior. It fascinates me to see how Marty has progressed through the fog .

              I love how he is deconstructing Scientology. He is doing this remarkably well. I have learned a lot. I have kept my mouth shut and waited until now. I can’t wait until his next book comes out.

              I am not stuck. I am a realist. LRH plagiarism is well documented. All one has to do is to read Jon Atack’s, Bent Corydon’s and Russell Miller’s book to read who he stole much of his work from.

              Marty has the information. He has shared the information. After all that you have read… even here if nowhere else. You still continue to quote Hubbard and put him on a pedestal that is not deserved.

              Am I highly critical of Hubbard. Yes. I also see the radical MS2 group as those who are only deluding themselves.

              I understand mind control. I understand those needing to go through their own path to decompress. I do have compassion for those who do read. Do take the time to process the information that is presented to them.

              The ones that I admire. The ones that I respect for making it through this Mind Fuck known as Scientology I am at the end of the tunnel congratulating them for their effort . I applaud them for their strength. Many of them are the heroes of this saga.

              So to say that I AM stuck? I am confused. What part am I stuck on? I do not hate. I come from a good place.

              I do hate what Scientology has done to good people who have not recovered ..mentally, financially or spiritually.

              Please don’t use a quote. Just your own words. Thank you.

              • Baby, I got all you said. Here’s how I look at the whole subject based on the data I have – which includes a fair amount of reading many articles, blog posts and comments, and portions of critics’ and religious scholars books about Scientology. I’ve also read the accounts of those of opposite views, who have a lot of positive things to say, including many who were “there” as either public or staff, some of whom worked closely with LRH.

                Maybe he did plagiarize a lot, but he was the one who put it all together into a system that in the earlier years, at least, was reportedly helping people be more aware, happier, and do better in life.

                I do see that LRH started going in an entirely different direction at some point as compared to where he started out with scientology. Or maybe the change was more gradual, I’m not sure. And neither do I know for sure his motives, even from the beginning.

                More importantly, to me, is that in present time I hear about or read about the positive results people are getting from independent scientologists who apply only LRH materials, as well as practitioners who have researched and apply what they consider much better methods than what LRH came up with – and as critical as some of them are of LRH they still give him credit for the foundation of their work.

                Btw, I’ve even had some auditing from one of those people, so you can see just from that I’m not a “strictly LRH” person. My basic view is that what he started can and should be built on and improved, such as the TIR methodology being used in your field.

                Basically, even if LRH had been completely evil and yet came up with, or put together from others’ work, something of value – there’s no reason to not make use of what was beneficial and build on it. Otherwise, it seems to me that we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

                This is why I focus on the positive and have the urge to protest when others deny that it exists or ever did. In turn, they protest what I say too, because their view is that it’s more harmful than good, at least with regard to “strictly LRH” tech. However, I assure you that if the day comes that I see it that way, I’ll see it that way. Not to fear.

                • Thank you for your reply.

                  I would absolutely be so ashamed and embarrassed to call myself a Scientology in 2014.

                  I do understand those STILL in.. Disconnection, Unable to Escape.. Mind Control etc.

                  but to be given all the information that is available to those on the outside to me is absolutely reprehensible.

                  Unless if you are decompressing. If that is the case than I would advice you to read Marty’s posts addressing this.. Letting Go, or

                  https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/the-way-out-is-not-the-way-back-in/.
                  ETC.
                  Please refer to Marty’s comments to Val. They also pertain to you.

                  • I would like to write an addendum:

                    Marildi.. I apologize for my reaction to your post. You did not ask for my advice and yet I did what I did to Val, I gave it!

                    If I were to see you walking down the middle of the road with cars speeding on either side of you I would attempt to prevent you from doing so.

                    That is exactly what I was trying to do. I only see danger associated with Scientology.

          • Hmmm… poor Vinaire — are you now confusing me and marildi? too many discussions going at once?
            Deep breath, matey, deep breath.

        • MARILDI quoting LRH: ““A truth is something which would exist without much contest, something which is triumphant. A champion who stands up after a battle with bloodied shield and sword and yet has won is himself truth in the force universe. A datum which itself sweeps all data before it, in another universe, is truth. It is that which works. And that which works most broadly to that which it is applied.”

          I am interested in investigating the interface between physics and metaphysics. A common observation between the two subjects is that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent. Nothing that is absolutely permanent has been found. Something may be triumphant for a while, but that triumph is temporary. Triumph through force is the least permanent. Triumph through logic is relatively more permanent. Triumph through science and mathematics is still more permanent. Triumph through the application of mindfulness, in my opinion, is more permanent than rest of the triumphs combined. But even that is not permanent for ever.

          LRH is correct when he says, “A datum which itself sweeps all data before it… is truth. It is that which works. And that which works most broadly to that which it is applied.” Unfortunately, that datum is not Scientology Axiom #1. The Scientology Axiom #1 follows Parmenides of Elea and not Heraclitus of Milesius. I find Heraclitus and Buddha agreeing with each other. I agree with them too. See Ground State of Universe – History

          .

          • “LRH is correct when he says, ‘A datum which itself sweeps all data before it… is truth. It is that which works. And that which works most broadly to that which it is applied.’ Unfortunately, that datum is not Scientology Axiom #1.”

            Why not? The idea that “Life is basically a static” indicates relativity to the kinetic of the physical universe.

        • MARILDI quoting LRH: ““And sure enough, they will, every one of them, find a truth. And all they need to do to find the ultimate truth, is simply find the winning truth by which all other truths proceed in that field.” “

          I think LRH’s weakness has been going with Parmenides and not with Heraclitus as I indicated earlier. That made all the difference in Scientology.

          Heraclitus had the winning truth.
          .

  10. ”Aristotelian and Newtonian two-valued, space-time logic philosophy and science are demonstrated to be essentially of a mind construct basis by developments in quantum mechanics and the related fledgling field of science of consciousness…”

    .

    Marty, I shall like to point out that Newton came up with Calculus, which is an accurate method to sum up the infinite gradients of a variable. It does not fit under “binary logic.”

    Newton did consider Space and Time to be independently absolute as was traditionally thought of. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity corrected that. Space and Time are relative, and not absolute or independent of each other.

    On the same basis, I should add that Spirituality and Physicality have been traditionally considered to be absolute independently. A “spiritual Einstein” is overdue in coming to clearly demonstrate that Spirituality and Physicality are relative and not absolute or independent of each other. Lot of ideas about God, soul, beingness, etc., will drastically change as a result.

    An anthropomorphic God exists because of “human-centric” thinking, which also believed in an “earth-centric” universe. Fortunately, the latter has been corrected with better observations, but it was opposed by the Church tooth and nail.

    But such biases are hard to let go of. The Theory of Relativity still suffers from a “matter-centric” frame of reference bias. And the Quantum Theory suffers from an “awareness-centric” bias.

    I do agree that Science and Religions have catered to “human-centric” survival to the detriment of the health of this planet. This aspect of Science and Religions has not been so drastic in the East. But there we have the problem of ignorance too. The uncontrolled increase in population is a threat to the planet’s health as well.

    I agree that binary thinking has to go.
    .

  11. Linear cause and effect thinking like:

    Cause A —->Effect B

    is an overly simplistic way of seeing the world and how things happen.

    There is no way to get to “Real Whys” with this type of thinking because the world just does not work that way.

    I was introduced to a much better way of seeing cause and effect in my studies of Buddhism, beginning with the concept of Dependent Arising. A Dependent Arising is a phenomenon which relies on many causes and conditions for it to exist.

    For instance, a plant.

    For a plant to exist, there is not just one cause —–> plant.

    There are many causes and conditions which have to be just right, or you don’t get a plant.

    The causes and conditions necessary for a plant to “arise” are:

    soil
    water
    sunlight
    carbon dioxide
    temperature above freezing and below boiling
    minerals and nutrients in the soil
    a seed that is buried to the correct depth

    etc etc etc.

    All these causes and conditions, when they are in their correct ranges, and combined in just the right arrangement, produce the phenomenon of a plant.

    This way of seeing cause and effect is far superior to Hubbard’s “The Why” view of understanding phenomena and why they exist.

    The simplest and most concise explanation of this Buddhist view of cause and effect is written in “How To Practice” by the Dalai Lama and translated by Jeffrey Hopkins.

    But here is a really good description, too.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_arising#Overview

    This way of seeing cause and effect truly is Movin On Up a Little High-ah.

    Great Point, Mart-ay!

    Alanzo

  12. Bravo Mark.

    To which I’ll add “back-up” by quoting my current favorite buddhist thinker … Shantideva “The Way of the Bodhisattva” … “a single cause of anything there has never been …”

    Windhorse

  13. Sp’s are more Powerfull that OT’s because the OT looses his Gains when connected to a SP.

    badabing!

    • Good said .. it was always my idea that scientologists and LRH did always overestimate the powers of SPs .. the rules of cause and effect applies here .. you can be the effect but you must not .. you can always go away, and you can call that effect .. but it is the same time cause .. I mean you loose an anti intended being or group .. but they loose also an expected victim and especially an expected helper ..

      The bad peoples can only win when the good peoples shut up .. following if an OT looses his wins in the environment of an SP or SPs .. then there was no OT there in the first place .. nobody can loose a win when he had really a win .. loosing a win depends not on SPs ..

      I will speak another point. For LRH there is a analytical and reactive mind.
      After hearing LRH speaking a lot of the powers of the reactive mind, it became clear to me (my thoughts) that the reactive mind must be much more intelligent and powerful than myself .. by inspection it became clearly an untrue statemant .. because if it were this way .. all man were dead ..

      Okay – I myself have no experience with erasing a reactive mind. I got more than 1000 hours auditing .. nothing erased ever .. so I could not loose a win because I had none .. but it is untrue .. I had wins otherwise I had stopped that balderdash .. but my win was simply that I have neither an analytical nor a reactive mind .. had never such things .. do not need it at all .. it is only me who looks .. and are able to look back at places and times, but it is not a mind who helped me .. it is simply me who can do it ..

      Basically I had the favorite cognition of all cognitions (very early in auditing), but the church did always try to convince me that I would have a reactive mind as each other on this planet and in the whole universe ..

      What is also about suppression and SPs .. they do nothing else than giving you wrong truths or wrong items or other falsehood .. when I said, that the church was my SP .. I became an ethics case with all assingments down from liability to confusion .. now I am declared as SP (it is only because of my reading and wrinting here or Mike Rinder blog) .. has nothing to do with being a SP .. there is no harm involved for somebody ..

      So on .. OTs can loose there wins when they go critical about her wins, but it may be the way to beome real OT .. it means seriously that the wins were never really really there ..

      I will not evaluate wins which somebody had .. it is possible to have some with Scientology .. there are people around who stack up pictures, and then, and only then one has a mind ..

      • Thank you for your serious and well tought out reply. It was educational, intresting and unexpected.

        CD

      • The whole talk about “SP-PTS” is simply a justification forwarded by LRH for the failure of his tech. When tech is working there is no need for ethics. To use ethics to put in tech is an altered sequence.

        • Whoa boy whoa! Buddhism also says in exssense, that Ethics must be “in”, for Tech to work. The Noble Eightfold Path is a central, integral part of Buddhism, because Buddha did say that a person whose ethics were “out” could not achieve nirvana.
          Three of the 8 ‘folds’ of the path are directly concerned with Ethical conduct 1 Right speech
          2 Right action
          3 Right livelihood

          Two others are related, they fall under “wisdom” and are the first 2 listed
          1 Right view
          2 Right intention

          Here’s a synopsis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

          • There is no RPF, heavy ethics, and interminable sec checks in Buddhism.

            Scientology ethics is not the same as Buddhist ethics. Just because the same word “ethics” is being used, it doesn’t mean it is really ethics that Scientology is doing with “PTS-SP” tech. It is screwed up tech. It is Hubbard squirreling.

            • I was responding to a post someone made using your handle, which categorically stated that- “When tech is working there is no need for ethics. To use ethics to put in tech is an altered sequence.”
              Buddha taught that his tech would not work for a person who was not “ethical” and he went on tho enumerate the 8-fold Path, which includes several points of necessary ethical behaviors. You can go ahead and define ‘ethics’ however you wish, but the fact is in both cases, no matter how different they may be in their specifics, they are both referring to considertions of “right” and “wrong” conduct.
              Nya nya.

              • I remember LRH saying that when tech is working there is no need for ethics. But it is not pertinent whether he said that or not.

                What is pertinent is that when tech is working, ethics is obviously in. Therefore, there is no need to apply ethics. The person is behaving ethically on his own accord.

                One uses ethics to put in ethics. One does not use ethics to put in tech. When a pc is sent to ethics because tech is not working on him, then it is a failure of tech. Sending him to ethics is an unusual solution.

                Hope you understand what I am saying.

              • LRH invented this tech after his Rhodesia trip / experience .. he said something about how OTs should be with OTs and so on .. he invented also lower conditions for his good guys .. so on and whatever for LRH was everybody a potential suppressor .. something which I have never understood at all .. but he did .. later he invented BTs .. something which is the same .. you have freaky beings around you who suppress you every second since 75 Mio years .. great cognition of him to make everybody wrong for not handling this aliens .. gread deal in sequence of his PTS/SP concept ..

            • And those specific points of ‘ethical conduct’ in the 8-fold Path, when combined with being a member of a ‘sangha’ are kinda like a continuous ‘sec check’ one is living under the yoke(yoga) of, to help keep one on the straight and narrow of the Path.

              • There are no sec-checks in Buddhism. A monk is keeping his ethics in on his own accord. If a person is unable to follow the rules of the sangha he is simply let go.

              • And the rules of a Sangha are rational and well-defined unlike the rules in Scientology which keep on changing like the flavor of the month.
                .

                • I don’t disagree with that.
                  However I am referring to Ethics in its fundamental definitions, not as it evolved in the CoS or was estblished for the Sea Org. Especially the Sea Org, I guess, would be a very special case. They act like Police who feel they are above the laws.
                  It appears to be a fact that although the US keeps a complete and detailed data base of crimes committed nationwide, they keep NO stats(available to the public) regarding how many people are shot and killed by police every day, week, month, and year. It is a substantial number. Is that “ethical”?
                  I mention this because Al in particular seems to counter-post to me that it is not possible to compare ethical systems, and I don’t agree. I argue that ethical philosophies do have some commonalities, similarities and differences. Ethics is basically an attempt to discover universals for deciding upon right conduct. And that is the bottom line for Communist ethics, Republican ethics, Hindu ethics, Scientology ethics, Buddhist ethics, Mafia ethics, etc. What is right conduct?

                  • The point was when tech goes in ethics backs off. You don’t use ethics then. The person is following a disciplined, except in Scientology, it seems.

                  • Valkov wrote:

                    “I mention this because Al in particular seems to counter-post to me that it is not possible to compare ethical systems, and I don’t agree.”

                    I never wrote or counter-posted to you that it is not possible to compare ethical systems.

                    Remember Valkov, duplication comes before understanding.

                    Alanzo

                    • So you concede that Buddhism has an ethical system, and that Scientology also has an ethical system? Splendid! So therefore I can compare them for differences, similarities, congruencies, and parallels, and even concordances? Great!

                    • Then why do I sometimes feel you do not understand what I write, or my frame of reference?

          • Valkov wrote:

            “Whoa boy whoa! Buddhism also says in exssense, that Ethics must be “in”, for Tech to work. The Noble Eightfold Path is a central, integral part of Buddhism, because Buddha did say that a person whose ethics were “out” could not achieve nirvana.”

            The purpose of the application of Buddhist ethics is to alleviate suffering, not to attain Clear and OT.

            You are doing it again.

            Alanzo

            • I know you are, Al. (Doing it again). Don’t make me sorry I called you a good guy.
              Or go ahead and do so. If you still need motivators, I guess. But I do think you have been too hard on yourself for all those overts you committed while in Scientology. One is always one’s own harshest critic, isn’t one?

              • I’m just pointing out to you, Valkov, that you are seeing Scientology when you are studying Buddhism again.That completely wrong statement you made about Buddhist ethics is total proof of it.

                I know that LRH told you that Scientology was a “cousin to Buddhism”, and that he also mimicked Buddhism in many ways to deceive and to attract Buddhist followers to Scientology. He mimicked Christianity with the cross and talked about how Jesus was a “natural Clear” and all kinds of other tricks. It was all part of his con to make money from Scientology.

                He even said “When you address me, you address Lord Buddha”.

                Eyeroll.

                So believing what Ron told you, I can understand why you would think that Buddhism was actually Scientology while you are studying it. I’ll bet you even skip over parts in Buddhist texts because you feel you have “already studied that part before in Scientology.”

                But when you do that, you are missing very important lessons in Buddhism that have absolutely nothing to do with Scientology. To a Scientologist, these Buddhist lessons are a COMPLETELY NEW and DIFFERENT of SPIRITUALITY. And when you place a Scientology understanding over a Buddhist passage, you are not getting what the Buddhism is actually saying.

                I worry for you, Val. You have been totally snookered by L Ron Hubbard and you are continuing that snookering right on in to your subsequent studies of things.

                It really isn’t my problem. It is all your problem. I’m not really even worried that you will “squirrel” Buddhism and pass on your squirreling to others, and thus, snuff out the subject and lead others into the sticky dark, alone.

                I’d just hate to see you continue to trap yourself with the mental traps that LRH gave you.

                Step on out of the trap of thinking with Scientology, Valkov. There’s a big wide world out here.

                Alanzo

                • CORRECTION: To a Scientologist, these Buddhist lessons are a COMPLETELY NEW and DIFFERENT KIND of SPIRITUALITY.

                • One of us certainly appears to be trapped. Enjoy this, from Wikipedia:
                  “Philosophical ethics investigates what is the best way for humans to live, and what kinds of actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances.

                  i recommned Jacob Needleman’s book titled “Why Can’t We Be Good?”. It is all about Conscience and is based on workshops he did in schools. Many good quotes in there, too, by such thinkers as Marcus Aurelius. He has a whole section on Socrates, as wel as Buddha. And more. And yet it is not a long, difficult to read book.
                  In the meantime, I think T.O.’s recent post says it all:
                  https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/effect-and-cause/#comment-315078

                  JUst plug in “Al” wherever she has “Baby”.

                  • I heard it loud and clear Val. You know like, ” MIND YOUR OWN FUCKIN BUSINESS..” You will never have to guess what I am thinking. Passive Aggressiveness has never been a part of my nature.

                    Apathy has now set it.

                    It did come from a good place. I thought I saw a light in you that needed to glow further out. I was mistaken.

                    • Was that post you quoted even addressed to you?

                    • Val says ..”In the meantime, I think T.O.’s recent post says it all:

                      https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/effect-and-cause/#comment-315078

                      JUst plug in “Al” wherever she has “Baby”.
                      …………………………………………………………………………
                      This is what I was referring to..
                      It was rude and dismissive.

                      For 30 years I was a Case Manager for those Hubbard would deem to be degraded beings. The Mentally Ill, the Mentally Retarded/Developmentally Disabled ( MR/DD) Veterans suffering from PTSD, etc.

                      I drove a dilapidated Bus around picking up the Homeless to take them to AA/NA meetings.

                      Or as Mirildi would call them Bums who were in the same area as she was while out walking.

                      During that time I counseled and set up treatment plans to ensure that my clients would successfully acclimate into society. As long as my Mentally Ill clients remained on their medication they were stable. When they were off the medication they were not.

                      Since I am retired I no longer do that. I have always tried to live a purpose driven life. My purpose now is to inform and educate those about the dangers regarding Scientology.

                      I read your post about Marty being at the end of the tunnel of Scn and you just at the beginning of the tunnel. I erroneously interpreted that as you still had doubts.

                      I apologize for any advice that was given to you that you did not ask for.
                      It will not happen again.

                    • Baby wrote:

                      I have always tried to live a purpose driven life. My purpose now is to inform and educate those about the dangers regarding Scientology.

                      This is very clear to me, Baby.

                      When you have taken care of people who Scientology would target for destruction, and even those it would try to “help” (and know how they would “help” them), you can see exactly how dangerous Scientology is.

                      Thank you for what you have done and continue to do.

                      Valkov has seen and heard everything about the damage that Scientology and L Ron Hubbard have done to people, and he continues to dismiss this damage and to promote Scientology. I don’t know how any responsible human being can behave this way, but…

                      There ya go.

                      He’s an easy target though. You can take his statements and his thinking and hold it up to others to show how fucked up Scientology thinking is. And those others generally get it.

                      There have been many Scientologists who have seen Valkov’s thinking displayed on their computer screens and who have run screaming from Scientology as a result.

                      So he does have his uses.

                      Alanzo

                    • All your propagandistic ad hom and unverifiable statements(speculative at best, deliberate lies at worst) ill becomes you Al. I guess we’re back to where we started. Anyone reading such posts wil recognize the words of a demagogic ideologue.

                    • It’s what you write, Valkov.

                      It’s all right there to be quoted and displayed.

                      No ad-hom to it at all. Your thinking is in your writing, as is all of Scientology writing and thought.

                      Don’t blame me if it is morally corrupt and makes no sense.

                      Alanzo

                    • I think you’ve been spending too much time on your Oiliness Table. It’s dripping off you.

                    • OK, Al. I’ll write this: I think there are a lot of good central ideas in Scientology theory.

                    • Valkov wrote:

                      OK, Al. I’ll write this:

                      I think there are a lot of good central ideas in Scientology theory.

                      Oh! This is a good one, Valkov!

                      It’s got weasel words and everything!

                      “CENTRAL ideas”…

                      Which ideas are those Valkov – exactly?

                      Alanzo

                    • The Alice Kramden crtoon was supposed to be a reply to mirildi’s Edith Bunker post…..

                      Here’s the reply to yours. Since you don’t want any qualifiers or modifiers, I will just say this: “IMO, There are good ideas in Scientology”.

                    • And “Scientology THEORY

                      What is Scientology theory, exactly?

                      These weasel words need to be defined clearly and with no weasel wiggleness.

                      If you are not just an emotion-manipulating sophist, please define these phrases you have used with precision so that we can know what you are talking about exactly.

                      Thanks.

                      Alanzo

                    • If you don’t know, after umpteen years in Scientology including running a Mission as ED, and allegedly taking many course which were structured as “Theory” and “Practical” sections, there is no point to my saying any more about it.

                • Oddly enough, I am not offended by Al’s post about me, as I would have been in the past. Now, it looks to me like a window into his mind, into his thought process and mindset.
                  Into how he feels he “knows best”, feels he knows and understands me better than I know myself, etc.
                  Fascinating.

                  • Valkov wrote:

                    Oddly enough, I am not offended by Al’s post about me, as I would have been in the past. Now, it looks to me like a window into his mind, into his thought process and mindset.
                    Into how he feels he “knows best”, feels he knows and understands me better than I know myself, etc.
                    Fascinating.

                    This is an interesting new angle, Valkov.

                    If I point out where you are thinking with Scientology – as I did with your Scientological interpretation of Buddhist Ethics – you are now saying that I feel that I know and understand you better than you know yourself.

                    No.

                    I can just spot when you are thinking with Scientology in your writing. It blares out clearly and loudly like a big clown honk horn in the middle of a circus act.

                    It’s unmistakable. Maybe not to you, but it is to me, and to many others here.

                    In fact, spotting when someone is thinking with Scientology is a very important skill to develop. If you can spot it in others, eventually you will be able to spot it in yourself.

                    And that will make all the difference.

                    Alanzo

                    • deElizabethan

                      “spotting when someone is thinking with Scientology is a very important skill to develop. If you can spot it in others, eventually you will be able to spot it in yourself.”
                      Excellent point Al”

                    • It flabbergasts me that all you guys who were “in Scientology” for so long, apparently never learned to consciously “think with it”? What in the world were you doing with it all that time?

                    • deElizabethan

                      Val, I believe Alanzo answered your question more than adequately, and to my liking.

                    • In which of his posts? He has made several.

                    • Sure, I am learning to “think with” scientology. Isn’t that the goal, when learning a nw subject? Learn to think with it? I’ve done that with a number of related subjects. I set out to learn how to do that. Glad to know I am succeeding. 🙂
                      The point is, if I am able to “think with it”, then it is not “thinking with me”, or “thinking for me”, if you get what I mean.
                      That’s where your arrogance displays itself I think. To be blunt, I think maybe you were brainwashed twice – once when you uncritically accepted “scientology” and again when you uncritically accepted the “critical” explanations of it.
                      It shows up because you claim to spot when I am “thinking scientologically”, but fail to deal with what I am thinking on its own merits. It is as Vin always complains – people don’t follow his “discussion policy” and talk about the ideas on their own merits. That is true sometimes when you respond to my posts. If I disagree with your interpretation of somethong, you dismiss my disagree by ridiculing or simply labeling it as “Oh, there he goes again, thinking like a Scientologist!” as thought that somehow rebutted what I actually said. Psychologists have various names for that kind of behavior. But yes, of course I “think with scientology”! How else do you think a person learns a subject? I also think with Buddhism, Christianity, Gurdjieff/Ouspensky, and various other systems and thinkers
                      What you seem to fail to grasp is that they are all “approximations”, “constructs”, of the total reality. I also think with English, Russian, and even some Japanese because I partly grew up there and took classes in it.
                      I’m tempted to throw in a zinger at the end here, but I won’t.
                      I’m too astounded that you are trying to convince me I sometimes “think with scientology” ! The only issue that matters to me is, am I doing things knowingly or unknowingly. In other words, am I mindful of it.
                      For vin’s benefit, I should mention that there is no such thing as “absolute mindfulness”, either. One is as mindful as one is, no more and no less. He posts as though if I followed his instructions to be “mindful”, I would agree with everything he posted.
                      Good luck with that, Vinnie!

                    • Valkov wrote:

                      It [Alanzo’s arrogance] shows up because you claim to spot when I am “thinking scientologically”, but fail to deal with what I am thinking on its own merits.

                      But I dealt with what you said on it’s own merits in my very first response to you:

                      You wrote to Vinaire:

                      “Whoa boy whoa! Buddhism also says in exssense, that Ethics must be “in”, for Tech to work. The Noble Eightfold Path is a central, integral part of Buddhism, because Buddha did say that a person whose ethics were “out” could not achieve nirvana.

                      And I wrote to you:

                      The purpose of the application of Buddhist ethics is to alleviate suffering, not to attain Clear and OT.

                      That is directly dealing with what you wrote.

                      I’ll expand even further.

                      Buddhist ethics and Scientology ethics have almost nothing to do with each other. Yes, Valkov, they are both systems of ethics (well played, sir) but they have a completely different purpose than the one you ascribed in your original statement.

                      You thought that Buddhist ethics played the same role for a Buddhist practitioner that they do for a Scientologist in Scientology. And this is false.

                      The purpose of Scientology ethics is to weed out PTSes and SPs, get and keep the statistics of the organization rising (making more money), and as Ron told you “to get the tech in”.

                      But Buddhist ethics, such as practicing the 8 fold path, have absolutely nothing to do with these things. And they do not “get the tech” of Buddhism “in”.

                      My repeated point to you has not been ad hom or “believing I know you better than you know yourself” or any of the other dodges you keep throwing in the way of addressing this point.

                      My repeated point is that Buddhism and Scientology are different. And any time you use Scientology to try to understand Buddhism, you will fail to understand Buddhism.

                      Not just you, Valkov, but anybody.

                      You really have a hard time staying on the subject.

                      Really.

                      Alanzo

                    • Yes Al, sometimes you do respond to the content of a post. I believe I did acknowledge this. Here’s my take. I will start with this particular item, gotta start somewhere:
                      “The purpose of Scientology ethics is to weed out PTSes and SPs, get and keep the statistics of the organization rising (making more money), and as Ron told you “to get the tech in”.
                      I see this as a corruption of the basic ideas of Scn Ethics. That is NOT the purpose of Scn Ethics.
                      The purpose of Scn Ethics is “Reason and the contemplation of optimum survival”.
                      Survival of what? Everything existing. All dynamics. Not just the SCn orgs, ALL dynamics.
                      It has to do with “world maintenance”. The maintenance of all Creation.
                      If you are inviolved in the destruction of some dynamics, be aware. You’d better have a damn good reason. You’re going to pay the price.
                      That is similar to Buddhist Ethics, and th eEthics of many other religions and philosophies.
                      The fact that the CoS went its own perverted way and ignored and twisted this basic standard, is, well, a fact. The CoS became increasingly corrupt and “egoistic”. It never questioned it’s own assumption that “we are the good guys”. It never developed a Conscience.
                      Hearing LRon talk about Scientology and Scientologists, he idealized them. He thought they could do no wrong. It is obvious in even the earliest lectures. He thought they all “got it”. He thought they would all be “ethical” in the highest sense of the word. Thus he thought the end justified the means, and it would all be good in the end. It hasn’t played out that way, has it?
                      I recommend the book “Why Can’t We Be Good?” by Jacob Needleman.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      You are either a very confused pup or are being venal.

                    • I am a very confused pup, assuming those are the only two alternatives! It is my take on the subject as I understand it, or as I understood it in 1972 and since. That’s my story and I’m sticking with it, unless you can be a bit more specific.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      You are perfectly free to remain comfortably numb.

                    • As are you, I guess. Although I’m not sure why that is even an issue.

                    • Valkov, as I see you may be confusing your own ideal scene with Scientology. If you identify the two correctly you would be fine.

                      ________________________________

                    • I’m glad you said that. I am not confusing them at all. What you are neglecting to notice is the uproar is because I posted a positive idealistic statement by LRon as the basic consideration of my ideal scene. If anyone else had said “Ethics is Reason and the Contemplation of Optimum Survival”, there would be no problem. If it was a “Buddha quote”, no problem. People here would be saying “Oh yeah? Cool.” But because y’all were contaminated by the CoS culture, you are throwing rotten tomatoes at me. I don’t think I am the one who is confused…..

                    • So true! Everything you said.

                    • Thanks. I’m glad someone got what I’m saying! I am not a trained auditor and am not even that knowledgeable of a lot of th etheory, but it occurs to me today that what happens is, some of my posts miss withholds on some of the readers. That’s how I pull in some of the flack I get.

                      It is a fact to me, that no matter how badly I or Al or LRH or Marty or Miscavige or CoS Management collectively or individually, or org staff or public screwed the pooch, that “Ethics is reason and the contemplation of optimum survival” is a perfectly good basis for making one’s decisions and choices in life. I haven’t seen a statement that would work any better. If more people followed it more ‘religiously’, it would be a different world. All or most of the people being all cynical about it and how LRH didn’t mean it are, to my mind, using that as a justification.
                      It doesn’t matter who said it or passed it along, the idea stands on its own. But it grinds them that LRH said it.
                      Brothers and Sisters, let us pray. Kumbaya.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      I think you are being condescending and possibly are intentionally misrepresenting what others think. What I have observed that seems to ‘grind’ former scientologists – most scientologists actually, but the ones still in can’t say anything about it – is that most all else that comes with scientology ethics and morals makes your quoted statement at best meaningless. At worst, bait for a most horrendous and diabolical switch up ahead.

                    • That’s fair enough Marty. As distantly as I was involved with the CoS, even I felt betrayed by the way things played out. I can only begin to imagine how others here who were deeply involved feel now. So I probably should be a lot more tactful in what I post, and I apologize to those I have upset. I’m not sure where that leaves me with posting on your blog. Maybe I’m better off as a lurker; I need to ponder that and possibly make some adjustment. I do not really fit the profile of an ex-SCN, ex-SO. I don’t have as many of the same issues. I got what I got out of it, and get what I get out of continuing to look at the materials. The perspectives I read here are informative. In any case, I am very grateful to you for running this blog all these years now the way you have, and wish you and the others the best.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      I hear you. At some point I think you may want to look at the experience perhaps a bit more objectively. For all the fond memories, since you insist on conveying only your own personal subjective experience and arguing in present time against it, what else was scientology up to at the very time you were practicing? What was it doing that gave you only the presentation that led to your subjective view? Framing journalists? Breaking into the psychiatrist offices and stealing files of critics, chain lockering anyone who might consider letting you know what Ron’s real priorities for you – as student or pc – were? I am not saying you need to focus only on the negative. What begins to grind on me is your seeming automatic default argumentation against any important point raised if you perceive it somehow disses scientology. You have written volumes here and in all of it there is very little about the central point or theme of the original piece the thread is commenting upon. I think your insights and even positive slant are valuable. It just becomes too much when it leans toward having to make scientology right on issues where it is so blatantly wrong.

                    • Sure, I’ve read/seen video of a lot of that stuff. The negative personal accounts, the Blue Sky book. And the positive personal accounts as well.
                      It’s all pretty much on ESMB or linked to from there, as well as other places.
                      I can’t relate to this: “….what else was scientology up to at the very time you were practicing?” Scientology was very diverse. “It” was not doing anything. “someone” was doing something. My auditor was “scientology”. My TRs twin was “scientology”. What were they doing? I had no idea what Hubbard was doing at the time. It’s kinda like asking “what was communism doing at the time?”. It’s easier to answer that in fact, but it would still be wrong. Kinda like asking “what was the Western world doing at the time?” Things are done, actions are performed by those who are capable of ‘agency’.
                      To say “scientology was doing this or scientology was doing that”, is a reification.
                      What was math doing at the time? Or social science – what was “it doing?”

                      It is much more relevnt and closer to the truth to ask “What was Hubbard doing at the time?” Can you answer that? (I don’t mean you should, it is for the sake of example, because he was capable of agency.) The ‘agency’ of ‘scientology’, of any organization or group of people is comprised of their individual agencies. That’s why there can be “war criminals”. It is individuals who are tried for their crimes. No one takes “socialism” to court in handcuffs and puts it on trial. No-one takes “democracy” to court and places it on trial for say, dropping atomic bombs on two cities in Japan when Japan was already sueing for peace. If the US had lost he war anyway, I bet some individuals would have been tried in the courts of the winners, like Truman, his advisors, the guys who flew the planes etc. Hubbard and the people who carried out his orders, they could be put on trial. Some were, and went to jail.
                      So would it be fair of me to say that in the year I was born, 1945, waht was ‘democrac’ doing? “Oh, it was dropping atomic bombs on two Japanese cities ful of women, children, and old infirm people. That’s what democracy was doing that year.”
                      Would that be fair to say, about ‘democracy’? To assign that kind of agency to an abstract concept? In my book, that is the reification fallacy.
                      Yes, I know a lot, I guess I should say enough, about what Hubbard and his cohorts in the Sea Org were doing, because I met some of them.
                      My helpful friends in scientology,, who were also “scientology”, were leaving. One eventually got ‘massacred’ out of her Mission, in an underhanded way. But I do not consider it was “scientology” that did anythiong. “Scientology” is an abstract concept. It was Hubbard that did things. His minions and cohorts in th eSEa POrg did things. The enablers in the orgs did things. But mostly the people in the orgs kept tying to make it work! That’s the tragedy ot it. They were sold on the “ends justify the means” thing. They went down a slippery slpoe because they wanted “scientology” as they knew it, to survive. Because as they knew it, it was good, or more good than bad, or at least their intentions were good.
                      Hubbard’s intentions by then questionable. Obviously he thought drastic actions were necessary to preserve his “baby”. We see the results today.
                      I’m a firm believer that social realities as we know them are co-created.
                      Ubuntu, as Tom posted
                      They are co-created by action and by inaction as well.
                      My memories are “fond” only by comparison. There were at least people trying, back then. Many of them were succeeding, too. Those helped me a lot. They were pretty much driven out of the CoS. And just as well, when the CoS structure was attacked and undermined by the IAS in short order. And it took me awhile to see that wasn’t working, but it sure kept me away. So maybe it was working, if that was the actual intention – take my money and keep me from getting up whatever Bridge there actually was.
                      My “fondness” is for whatever and whoever helped me at the time, back in 1970-1983 or so. The rest was a bitter disappointment. I guess that didn’t come through in my posts.
                      But I hope you get my point about reification and how I see agency.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      I skimmed enough to see that you are not even trying. I think Al’s analogy may be apt. You are acting as a host. That ‘scientology’ doesn’t do anything deleterious is part of you. Oh, in your mind, it does plenty good. But you see, according to scientology, scientology does good, people do bad. It is like we cannot have a discussion on sensible weapon control because ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’, or ‘I am rubber and you are glue…’ Thanks at least for demonstrating the principle as it applies to scientology.

                    • Yes, I ‘entertain’ ideas. Growing up isolated and alone, I read books and entertained ideas. I guess that’s like ‘hosting’ ideas.
                      The issue to me is, which ideas? Compare ideas. Hubbard expressed idea sthat were good, as well as ideas that were bad. You guys seem to view ideas as strong wine, that if one drinks any, he will become an addict. I see ideas as food. They can be nourishing or toxic. It appears you, Al, and others see all of ‘scientology’ as toxic. I assume that is based on experience. I haven’t had that experience so I don’t see it that way. If I listen to say, a group processing recirding and feel lighter, why would I see that as bad? Or listen to a lecture and feel enlightened or entertained in some way, why would I see that as bad? If I run an assist on someone and they feel better or resolve a problem, is that supposed to be dangerous?
                      You may say I am not even trying, but you are not even trying to answer some of my questions, as above.
                      You seem to be saying the CoS and ‘scientology’ is basically a control operation. I can’t disagree with that. It is an operation designed to perpetuate the dissemniation of Hubbard’s product, the auditing philosophy and tech. The issue to me is, how viable is that product? The small amount of it I was exposed to seemed positive, by comparison with other available ‘therapies’ or methodologies. The cult aspect seemed undesirable to me, not something I would want to be involved in, although I can see the attraction it has. It is a relief of responsibility, a kind of “trust in God” kind of thing, only it’s ‘trust in Ron’ as the leader of the pack.
                      So the CoS to me is the sales organizations set up to sell the product, the dealerships set up to sell the cars.
                      My questions have to do with the viability and worth of the product. You are presenting it as, “there is no difference”. “The dealership is the car you are buying.” Well, no it isn’t. That doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m not buying the dealership or a membership in it, I’m just shopping for a car. If you’re saying “well, don’t buy from Henry Ford, he was anti-semitic”, that’s a different issue. Henry Ford is dead, and we are a “ford family” as far as buying new cars go, because our daughter works for Ford.
                      Sorry you’re disappointed with my level or style of thinking or its lack of depth, but that’s where I’m coming from.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      I am dealing with a heavily primed, associative-auto mind that bats back at me recharacterizations of my words to fit its matrix. No thanks.

                    • Actually you are dealing pretty well with it! I noticed a couple of weeks ago that a lot of my comments were on automatic, and you picked that up. But he characterization is exactly right. I also like the “not even trying” characterization becaus eit is true. I gave up trying quite some years ago and went on cruise control. I like it because it is one of the definitions of “wog” in the Tech Dictionary. That is how I think of myself. The only difference between me and some other wogs is, I know I am a wog. And I think there is a posssibility of moving to a different state or condition.
                      The past couple of years I have started a “life review” because of my age and medical problems, and you have been helpful with that. Thanks!

                      You do see me correctly as to my own condition. The ‘host’ thing I see differently; I don’t think it is based on the postulates Al thinks it is based on. Perhaps he does see more deeply than I do, into the scientology culture. That’s all well and good, but what he sees doesn’t necessarily do ME any good.
                      In any case, thanks for the time and attention you have taken with me. 🙂

                    • deElizabethan

                      Val, honestly, you have so many questions and many, many interesting thoughts you like to express and discuss on this thread. I would think it would be worth the effort to start a blog where you could continue with those interested in debate each day. Maybe fun too!. In fact, you really have a wide view of the workings of the world that could fill a nice book, which may benefit the public. Give it some thought, eh?

                    • Yes, I have a reputation for coming across as a condescending smartass. Can’t argue that. As for misrepresenting what others say, if I knew how to not do that, I wouldn’t do it. It is the way my mind filters things. I migh try sleeping on any post that sets me off, and letting it percolate through my mind before i respond. A lot of my responses are automatic I am realizing.
                      However, I think the people I am speaking to usually know who they are and I don’t feel they ‘represent’ me any better than I may be representing them. Therefore the ‘sleeping on it’ before I respond may be a good idea.
                      Lateky I’ve been operating on “respind immediately off the top of my head and see how that goes; well, the results have been mixed in my mind. Some hits, some total misses.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      I know what you mean. A recent bestseller, “Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow” may help. I think your best good buddy Al may have made that recommedation. Two in a row gems he’s suggested.

                    • Thanks. I’ll check it out. Al is really coming into his own lately. I’m glad to see it.

                    • deElizabethan

                      Val, you a funny man at times and I get a laugh from you. I thought of this as I read your post ‘“Ethics is reason and the contemplation of optimum survival”. ‘is a perfectly good basis for making one’s decisions and choices in life. I haven’t seen a statement that would work any better.’
                      Wonder if someone like Hitler justified his actions by this thinking.

                    • I think Hitler was very Germany-centered, so I doubt it. It’s possible he rationalized it all by thinking “In the end it wil be good for the world”, but I don’t think even that.
                      The Communists did think in that direction, but they only considered the first 4 dynamics, and rationalized their means as leading to a better society in the end. Well, we have several examples of how that went.
                      I guess any standard can be twisted and humans are clever enough to do so. But if you think that, then why bother to talk about “ethics” at all? Its like saying “Why bother to vote? The candidates and the elections are rigged anyway….”
                      So my point is, “Reason and the contemplation of optimum survival” is as good a basic foundation for an ethical approach to life as any. But people have to really do it, not use it to justify their overts. NO dynamic can be left out.
                      I’m sure you can think of many examples from the daily news, of how th eprinciple is being violated, not just by the CoS, but by greedy corporations, greedy politicians, greedy dictators, and just plain stupid selfish people.
                      I think one of the worst things a religion or church or society or educational system can do is make people cynical about ethics. Know anyone that’s happened to?

                    • Valkov, you are just picking one statement out of many that LRH said. Can you show me he always followed this statement about ethics? If he didn’t give much importance to it then it is just your ideal scene.

                    • Oh well, it is ‘just’ my, Valkov’s, ideal scene, therefore inconsequential by your standards? Totally not worth considering, right? Why are you so obsessed with LRH?

                    • Nice, Valkov.

                      Keep going, keep digging. Soon you will start spotting Source.

                      Alanzo

                    • Well, one should learn to think with a subject. But that includes looking at other things both with and without using that subject as a filter. That helps one compare the two realities and resolve inconsistencies.

                      Yes, there is no absolute mindfulness, but there is spotting and resolving inconsistencies on a gradient.

                      ________________________________

                    • I must say that I can understand Alanzo better than I can understand Valkov. Valkov is complex like Marildi.

                    • But Valkov has started to simplify himself. I can’t say that about Marildi yet.

                    • Is it similar to what I believe as follows:

                      “Knowledge is inherently consistent regardless of the source it comes from. Complexity appears only in those areas where inconsistencies abound. Resolve the inconsistency and the complexity goes away.”  

                      ________________________________

                    • Valkov wrote:

                      It flabbergasts me that all you guys who were “in Scientology” for so long, apparently never learned to consciously “think with it”? What in the world were you doing with it all that time?

                      That is the problem Valkov: thinking with Scientology leads you further and further away from the truth.

                      Remember the purpose of logic: “to preserve the truth throughout the reasoning process”?

                      You can use this same understanding to observe what happens while thinking with Scientology.

                      Thinking with Scientology causes a person to take the truth and to change it into something that Scientology can address or accept.

                      Remember from Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.?

                      This is literally true.

                      Why?

                      Because no philosophy can address the whole infinity of everyday existence (Truth).

                      While thinking with Scientology, something that happened to you is not exactly what happened, it is re-packaged as an engram. Something you did to someone else is not exactly what you did, it’s changed into an overt according to the moral codes in Scientology.

                      And a whole lot of things that happen in heaven and earth have no label in Scientology at all, and fall completely outside of it, are not addressed by it, and are ignored.

                      Only those experiences that fit within the finite boundaries of the ideology are accepted and addressed by Scientology, and then they are repackaged into something else per its dictates.

                      Thus, the more you think with Scientology, the more the infinity of experience is made finite, regulated, re-packaged, and corrupted.

                      This is why it is a mistake to think with Scientology, or with any ideology:

                      It leads you further and further away from the truth.

                      Alanzo

                    • @Vin:
                      For the benefit of those interested in applying the merits of discussion policy, it would be helpful to have you explain the points to which these comments apply:

                      vinaire | August 25, 2014 at 9:26 pm |
                      I must say that I can understand Alanzo better than I can understand Valkov. Valkov is complex like Marildi.

                      vinaire | August 25, 2014 at 9:27 pm |
                      But Valkov has started to simplify himself. I can’t say that about Marildi yet.

                    • Those comments were not part of any discussion. They were independent observations.

                      Discussion Policy applies to discussions.

                      >

                    • But they were observations about me as a participant in discussions – and “focusing on the participant,” instead of focusing directly on comments made by the participant, is a violation of YOUR “Discussion Policy”

                    • Nope. You are unable to duplicate.

                      Those comments were not part of any discussion.

                    • Vinaire wrote:

                      Nope. You are unable to duplicate.

                      Those comments were not part of any discussion.

                      LOL!!!

                      Oh!

                      That has to be the BEST L Ron Hubbard “Creator of Games” quote EVER!!

                      See, per the tech of the Discussion Policy, there a Players, Pieces, and Broken Pieces. These must follow the rules of the Discussion Policy.

                      But Vinaire, as the Creator of the Discussion Policy, does not have to follow the rules of the discussion policy, and can designate when a discussion is not existing.

                      It’s perfectly just, and totally Scientological.

                      Well done, Vinaire!

                      Alanzo (:>

                    • There cannot be any mindful discussion until all the parameters per Mindful Discussion are met. The Discussion Policy is a part of mindful discussions.

                      I can see that there is movement toward mindful discussions. Even Marildi is warming up to it now. So we may be able to achieve the ideal scene. The ideal scene is not there yet but it is getting better.🙂

                      ________________________________

                    • By the way, I am not the SOURCE of mindful discussion tech. The source are those giants on whose shoulders I may have stood. (:>

                      I am just like anybody else who need to follow this tech. But it takes a group to follow it and not a single individual. 

                      .

                      ________________________________

                    • Next you are going to write a common sense moral code called “Way To Discussingness” with precepts in it like:

                      “4. Never evaluate for another poster, or tell them why they think the way they do.”

                      and

                      “16. Never repeat the same message over and over with dozens of links back to your own blog.”

                      People will hand it out on troubled discussion boards and it will save millions of lives.

                      Alanzo

                    • “…the “Way To Discussingness…”

                      HILARIOUS!

                    • “But Vinaire, as the Creator of the Discussion Policy, does not have to follow the rules of the discussion policy, and can designate when a discussion is not existing. It’s perfectly just, and totally Scientological.”

                      Al, that is one of the fairest, most unbiased comments ever. You raised my affinity!

                      You make me want to be a better scientologist.😀

                    • Marildi wrote:

                      You make me want to be a better scientologist.

                      It seems I’ve always had that effect on you. And so has the toaster, and the cars passing in the street, and the people at the mall, and aspirin.

                      Scientology is a self-perpetuating, parasitical meme that has attached itself to its host and which gets continually positioned with survival itself.

                      It survives, not because the world needs it, but because the host has a hole where it can fit. If the host can spot the hole where Scientology fits in its life, then the host can see where Scientology is being a parasite.

                      Until then, everything and everyone makes it want to be a better Scientologist.

                      Alanzo

                    • Geeze Al, I thought you’d see the humor in that. It was a play on Jack Nicholson’s “You make me wanna be a better man.” Sort of self-deprecating humor. I even put a grin face after it for you.

                      Can we ever be friends?😀

                    • When you lob me a softball, I always go for the basket.

                      Alanzo

                    • Right. You should watch out for confusing frames of reference in general.

                    • Alanzo.. Any comparison between Scientology and Buddhism is offensive. I share your thoughts.

                    • “This is an interesting new angle, Valkov.”
                      This really says it all, about where you yourself are coming from Al. YOu htink in terms of “angles” and how to destroy or invalidate the person you see yourself as debating and having to overcome by any means necessary.

                      That’s the Scientologist in you at work.

                  • It’s great that you have started to look now.🙂

              • Val.. I am in total agreement with Vinnie and Alonzo.

                I deal with simplicity as you know. The old KSS method ( Keep it simple stupid) and please note I am NOT calling you stupid.

                Ethics for me is What is right and wrong? I was raised that way. It was the moral teachings of my family. I’m not saying we excelled I am just saying this is the way I was raised.

                The traits that I observe in those of high ethical standards are honesty, compassion, generosity, fairness to name a few.

                That is what those in the real world believe. The ones that aren’t going by Hubbard ‘s made up definition.

                Ethics as described by Hubbard is based on Stats. A High Staff person can get away with any infraction without a blink from Ethics.

                The entire Scientology organization is set up to be extremely unethical.

                To begin with Marty has already explained how Scientologists are trained to lie.

                • “Ethics as described by Hubbard is based on Stats.”
                  This is not my basis.
                  Ethics is better described as “rationality towards thegreatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”, the dynamics being understood as divisions of “everything existing”, the entire universe, in other words. In fact I think there are probably a lot more ‘dynamics’ than the original 7 or 8 that LRon expounded upon. The original 4 as in Dianetics, comprise the human world.
                  Stats don’t have much to do with it, unless you are counting stats like “tons of carbon pollution discharged into the atmosphere” by some industries. Even if it is producing the electricity for you to watch your TV, run your laptop and microwave oven etc, it may be doing more harm than good if it is causing more deaths of elders and babies, more asthma, meltin gof theice caps and so on.
                  That is what Ethics is all about, and it was originally defined that way by LRH. If he departed from working things out that way, that is not my problem, I don’t have to depart with him from the meaningful defintion of it and follow him into some abyss of unethical behavior, as some think he did go. Whether he did or not is irrelevant to how I use the basic concepts I am talking about, except as an example of how to not do things.

                  • For Hubbard, truth was the winning datum. Now that is some slippery slope.

                    Stats provided the winning datum for Hubbard. That was ethics to him.

                    • It may have been “ethics” to him at some point, but as I say above, that’s irrelevant to me. I go by how he originally explained ethics and work with that.
                      Scientific truth is never complete, you know that, right? It is always changing as new data and new paradigms emerge. Where do those emerge from, by the way??

                    • They emerge from resolving of inconsistencies.

                      Inconsistency in KHTK
                      .

                  • Val.. What ever gets you through the day. I take back my earlier comment about joining you for a beverage to talk.

                    We would both be miserable. There is just too huge of a gap between our thinking. I’m sorry for intruding in your thoughts. It must have given you great pain for me to speak so disrespectfully about the man who

                    created fair game, the RPF and the R2-45 Process. Yes he had the whole 1984 George Orwells 1984 Society set up.

                    His purpose of Ethics was always, ” To remove Counter Intentions from the Environment. ” Good Standing = producing for the church. It has nothing to do with morals.

                    So I will respectfully leave you with your own thoughts. I over estimated how closed you were to receiving others feedback.

                    Because yes.. I will admit for one and all to read. I will never be open to hearing one thing.. Not one thing that was good about the evil that was created by Hubbard.

                    Every good he stole. So I will credit the good to those who originally created it. Stepping off soap box.

                    • It’s not my problem that LRH did not follow his own formula for making ethical decisions and led many people astray about it, if that’s what he did.
                      Or maybe he thought he was doing so – following that principle. It doesn’t matter to me. Those people have their own responsibility for failing to follow the original basic principle.

                    • So, you are spouting just your ideal scene. LRH could have said it to deceive people and didn’t really mean it. He didn’t follow it anyway.

                      ________________________________

                    • Spouting? SPOUTING? There is one person who has spouted twice as much as anyone else on this blog.

                      Yes, MY ideal scene. Are you saying it is not worth ‘spouting’?
                      Please let me point out that you are having this supposed discussion with ME, not with LRH.
                      Therefore it is irrelevant whether or not he meant it, meant something else, or was saying it to somehow ‘trick’ people.
                      “Ethics is Reason and the contemplation of optimum survival” is as good a basis and guide for Ethical decision making as any I’ve heard. If everyone had been following it through history, it would be a different world. It is a perfectly good basic ‘monitoring consideration’ for one’s ‘ethics’. It doesn;t matter if Hitler or Stalin said it, or some Brit who planted their flag in the middle of India.
                      If you have a problem with the statement, it is because YOU have a problem.

                • ” A High Staff person can get away with any infraction without a blink from Ethics. ”

                  Correction a High Stat person.

            • No, Valkov is not doing it again. He is simply ignorant. May God forgive him.🙂

              • For he knows not what he does….

              • Tweedle Al and Tweedle Vin get in the act. Notice how their knees jerk in unison in th esame direction, in response to some of my posts?

                • LOL! It is just like Valkov and Marildi.

                • LOL😀

                  Yes, I noticed that. And also that your humor keeps getting better!😀

                • LRH created and recreate dianetics and Scientology. If you are using only selected parts of what he created you are not using Scientology, you are using iamvalkovology. Welcome to your own religion, but this site discusses Scientology.

                  • “using iamvalkovology” LOL!

                  • You are discussing what you think “scientology” is, based on your own experience and perceptions of it. Likewise for each individual posting here.
                    That’s what makes this blog a “multiple viewpoint system”.
                    Otherwise, you are saying we have to, agree to, MUST, take “scientology” on its own terms. And we’re not even doing that unless we include all viewpoints, Freezone, Ron’s Orgs, etc etc.

                  • Thank you, Eileen.

                    Alanzo

                    • Alanzo said..

                      ” This is very clear to me, Baby.

                      When you have taken care of people who Scientology would target for destruction, and even those it would try to “help” (and know how they would “help” them), you can see exactly how dangerous Scientology is.

                      Thank you for what you have done and continue to do.

                      Valkov has seen and heard everything about the damage that Scientology and L Ron Hubbard have done to people, and he continues to dismiss this damage and to promote Scientology. I don’t know how any responsible human being can behave this way, but…

                      There ya go.”
                      ……………………………………………………………………………
                      Thank you Alanzo.
                      ” Dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.”

                      Who can read these words ..Hubbard’s words and modify them to make them ” OK ?”

                      That quote is pretty much of a deal breaker for me.

                  • Come on Eileen.
                    Sorry, that one was to good to pass up. (Dexys Midnight Runners, song)
                    The study of knowledge/wisdom. The science of bodies of knowledge.
                    MY definition. Works for me. You can call my work ‘Markentology. That’s ok. I’m having a great time. I’ll continue to speak of my opinions and experiences as long as Marty will let me. He’s pretty cool. Has to be to let ME post here.
                    Mark

  14. Most of this stuff is abstruse to me, but this article has a couple of lines with some truly metaphysical implications, about the apparent fact that initially, the universe expanded much faster than light travels, and that therefore the speed of light is a limiting factor WITHIN spacetime, but that spacetime itself can, or could in the past, change faster.

    • As a young boy I made some drawings and paintings about universes .. it was from one viewpoint .. then I changed the viewpoint and looked it from the other side .. it was after reading some books about astronomy ..

      Maybe I was able to exteriorize very easy .. we are living on a planet who goes around a sun with a certain speed .. the sun goes in circle with the milkyway .. and this galaxy goes in random or not in the universe ..

      I thought if I add all movements together .. it is maybe the speed of light ..

      If it is true, the universe do not expand .. and the speed of light is only the speed you have for yourself as a being placed on a planet ..

      I did once exteriorise from this galaxy in auditing (imagened or true) .. but it made a lot of noise this random movements .. lot of randomity .. but it goes all in circles .. but your view from a planet is different, because you look at something which is million years ago .. nothing what you see is now really there where you see it now .. if you are exterior to it .. everything is there where it is now .. really, because everything has the same speed of light to your position and looking ..

      I thought: what is when I am 10 mio light years away or 50 mio or 100 mio, Okay, the milkyway becomes smaller and smaller (but not so much) ..

      But if I would have a magnifying glass I would then not look at 100 mio ago because I would see present time .. you can try it yourself ..

      • One must understand that EXTERIORIZATION has a much broader definition as follows:

        EXTERIORIZATION = Unfixing of a long term fixed attention

        Most people have attention fixed on the body. When this attention is unfixed most people are amazed at the affect.

        Similarly, attention can be fixed on the self, or on the universe. When that attention is unfixed, the result is amazing.

        Such fixed attentions may be described as “body-centric,” “self-centric,” “earth-centric.” “human-centric,” “matter-centric,” “cause-centric,” “universe-centric,” “awareness-centric,” etc. It is eseentially getting fixated on one aspect of a dichotomy. Dianetics was fixated on “survival”. Scientology is fixated on “Cause, static or thetan”.

        It is fascinating when exteriorized from the body, but that is just the beginning of an adventure. There is a lot more to come. Try mindfulness.🙂

        I have news for you. The speed of light is not a constant. The speed of light is a function of its frequency. We are simply looking at a very narrow band – the visible band – of the electromagnetic spectrum. A lot more experimentation has yet to be done.
        .

        • That’s not true, we are not just looking at the visible band. There are X Rays, U.V., I.R. (infra red) and radio waves. They have all been confirmed to propagate at the same rate in vacuum. Any one that can prove experimentally that this is not the case is likely to get the Nobel Prize. Anyone that can dis prove the steadiness of the speed of light is likely to get a Nobel prize. Everything can be measured. Saying the “speed of light is not a function of it’s frequency” is a very vague generality. If it was the function of the frequency wouldn’t it propagate at different rates ? After all, there are orders of magnitude (scientific nomenclature here) of difference in frequencies between the experimentally measured propagation of various electromagnetic waves.

          • Sorry, I quoted you wrong. Typo. I meant to say, “The speed of light is a function of its frequency” is a very vague generality . Not, ” Saying the “speed of light is not a function of it’s frequency” is a very vague generality.”

  15. Interesting! Russel Targ was a Stanford researcher and old OT 7 who, I am told, conducted experiments in the 1970s of creating and as-ising matter. It was fairly common knowledge in the Bay Area Scn community back in the day. Hal Puthoff was another OT who worked with Targ. In fact, Puthoff gave a talk at my father’s weekly Rotary Club luncheon about Scientolgy back in the day when, even though its PR had an odor then, it was nothing like the rotting corpse smell it has today. Imagine trying to get an Scn lecutre in a Rotary Club today.

    • I think you are mistaken about Targ. He was involved in the Stanford Research Institute project, sponsored by CIA, conducting remote viewing; but was never a scientologist. The other then-scientologist involved was one of the psychics, Ingo Swan. The research made a spiritualist of Targ, to then a hard core materialist physicist. I think he bypassed scientology altogether consistent with Puthoff and Swann effectively graduating from it during the era.

  16. Four valued logic, as opposed to 2 value logic, is:

    1. True
    2. False
    3. Both True and False
    4. Neither True nor False

    Here is a concise summary of Nagarjuna’s ideas:

    Summary of Nagarjuna’s Major Ideas

    a. All things, ideas, events, etc., are ’empty,’ meaning they don’t cause or define themselves, but arise and cease due to conditions.

    b. Under close scrutiny even the most rationally constructed positions and systems– including Buddhism– are demonstrably incoherent and irrational.

    c. The four alternatives– X is, X is not, X both is and isn’t, X neither is nor isn’t– underwrite all theories, propositions, beliefs, etc.; given any X, all four alternatives can be demonstrated to be invalid and inadequate.

    d. No entity arises from itself, from another, from both itself and another, or from neither itself nor another.

    e. All thinking presupposes the categories ‘identity’ and ‘difference,’ but these categories are incoherent and have no referent.

    f. Language does not refer to things, but is self-referential.

    g. There are two levels of discourse, the conventional and the ultimate; one learns the latter through the former, and realizes Nirvana on the basis of the latter.

    h. Our deepest emotional and existential problems stem from clinging to cognitive positions and presuppositions.

    i. The deep-seated, driving propensity to create the illusion of conceptual order through self-justifying rationalizations can be overcome and eliminated.

    Alanzo

    • Sorry – I forgot to give the source for the summary of Nagarjuna’s ideas. I did not write that.

      It’s here:

      http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/thinkers/nagarjuna-bio-asc.htm

      Alanzo

    • Again, I would recommend ‘The End of Suffering’ for a very good history and explanation of the tetra lama. Targ and Hurtak do a bit of a practical asking the reader to experiment with it a bit. Mind expanding stuff.

      • I will read it.

        Thanks.

        Alanzo

        • Thank you to Alanzo for posting Nagarjuna’s words which seemed to then prompt Marty (Mark) into reiterating about Targ and “End of Suffering”

          I just got the kindle edition after reading the fascinating intros etc …

          Sometimes I feel as if I’m 4 years old running to catch up to my (self appointed) big brother. (Marty) — he’s always at least 10 feet ahead of me.

          I had mentioned recently studying Shantideva (800 CE) but Nagarjuna predates him (180 CE) and Shantideva does commentary about Nagarjuna – and I could never quite “get” Nagarjuna

          Windhorse

    • I counter that with the sublimation of what Scientology stands for in one sentence:

      “Certainty, not data, is knowledge.”

      ―L. Ron Hubbard

    • Sometimes I wonder if there can be 6-valued logic — all of 1-4 are true, and none of 1-4 are true. But 6-valued logic would almost have to tap into some reality with more dimensions. So I’ll stick with 4-valued logic, which makes sense to my finite intelligence.

      4-valued logic also fits something called false dichotomies (which is also one type of logical fallacy). A false dichotomy tries to force an “either/or” decision when the best answer might be “both/and” or “neither/nor.”

      I’m going to let Nagarjuna’s ideas seep in. Thanks for sharing them.

      • FOTF wrote:

        4-valued logic also fits something called false dichotomies (which is also one type of logical fallacy). A false dichotomy tries to force an “either/or” decision when the best answer might be “both/and” or “neither/nor.”

        Great point!

        It is for this reason that some scholars recognize that Aristotle’s teachers, Plato and Socrates, taught four valued logic, too. There are a couple of Dialogues (which I can not name) where socrates Identifies the four possible lemmas (conclusions).

        But their student, Aristotle, directly addressed logic in targeted writings and lectures, and he did not apparently get this lesson from his teachers as well as he could have.

        The rest is (Western) history.

        Alanzo

    • 1. True
      2. False
      3. Both True and False
      4. Neither True nor False

      This doesn’t come up to logic because 3. is indicision and 4. is the same .. in 3 and 4 you have doubt also no decision .. basically a NO .. which means that True and False is not in order .. or other said it is a Maybe ..

      You can limit your logic to

      1. Yes
      2. No
      3. Maybe

      So you can expand this in a large way when you take the Maybe to more Yes or more No .. but this goes with 1. and 2. but you can also put in some other parts like

      4. Nothing .. looks like No, but means not looking at it .,
      5. Prefer .. looks like Yes, but means not looking at it really ..
      6. Postulate .. which has nothing to do with Yes or No or Maybe ..

      All logic should include Create .. because it is the source of Yes or No or Maybe .. must people use logic .. my table is mostly used .. and it is also LRH who used it .. I mean his introduction of the e-meter goes always in and about your Maybe .. never about your Yes or No .. the meter reads only for a case if you have a Maybe .. which means you have no Yes or not a No ..

      • Friend wrote:

        “This doesn’t come up to logic because 3. is indicision and 4. is the same .. in 3 and 4 you have doubt also no decision…”

        Well Friend –

        The best way to respond to you is to give you an example of how this 4 valued logic is useful.

        Remember, a workable definition for logic is “a system that can be used to preserve the truth throughout your reasoning process.”

        Good logic preserves the truth, bad logic diverges from the truth the more you reason with it.

        So let’s say you want to use logic to reason out the human phenomenon of ghosts. Humans have always been seeing ghosts and reporting them to other humans, who, using 2 valued logic, have engaged in endless controversy.

        Using 2 valued logic, ghosts can either be TRUE, or they can be FALSE. There is no other “bin” to put ghosts in when you are using 2 valued logic.

        For some humans, ghosts are TRUE.

        For other humans, ghosts are FALSE.

        And it NEVER SETTLES. There is no conclusion you can make which corresponds to the human truth of ghosts. And in order to conclude with only these choices, you have to block out and ignore some of the observed phenomena in order to decide EITHER/OR.

        What is the true nature of a ghost? Even for the person seeing it, it is both there and not there at the same time.

        For someone who did not see the the ghost, or who does not “believe” in ghosts, it’s not there – but SOMETHING is there.

        If you’ve only got EITHER/OR as your choice, then what is there has to be denied in order to conclude and to place it in the only 2 bins that you have.

        So you have this actual quality of ghosts being both there and not there at the same time.

        THAT is the true nature of a ghost.

        When trying to use 2 valued logic to reason out ghosts, there’s no place to put it. There is no bin to put ghosts in to decide or conclude which actually addresses the full nature of a ghost.

        Ghosts ARE BOTH TRUE AND FALSE.

        And if you look around, there are a lot of phenomena in human existence that fits this description. The use of 4 valued logic allows a person to apply a logic that actually addresses the world as it is for a human being.

        4 valued logic allows you to better preserve the truth throughout your reasoning process than 2 valued logic does.

        4 Valued logic allows you to conclude, and it allows you to conclude in such a way that corresponds to the actual truth of the phenomena as it exists for a human being.

        Alanzo

        • Good explanation.

          For me the speed of light goes in bin 3 or 4 in the absence of better experimental data.

          .

          • Key word recommendations for research. . Speed of light. One way speed of light. Two way speed of light.

            Oh, I see you wrote “For me” to distance yourself from current scientific results.

            I can’t argue with that. “For me” , speed of light is only about the planets going around stars and moons, that emanate light. Is it the light, or the planet’s motion that we measure? That is an important variable. If I cared to engorge my analytical mind .

            And the value? Most people just want to know when they flip the light switch in the bathroom can they find the fucking toilet paper?

            • Didn’t you just post this? “There is neither an “absolute truth” nor and “absolute falsity”. There is only relative truth and relative falsity.”

            • Hi Miss Oracle.
              I have been noticing lately, that there are several different forms of agreement. Thought you might be interested.

              There is one on one agreement. Sometimes called personal interaction. You think it is fun to go to a bar, have a few drinks and chat with friends. Your spouse thinks that it is fun to go to a bar……. Agreement. I like to tension a motor drive belt to 240 lbs., my co worker tensions his drive belts to 240 lbs. You chat at 42 decibels, your sister chats at 45 decibels, close enough. Agreement.

              Then there is group agreement. Social mores and culture. Wear shirt, pants and shoes in public. Smile when you speak to strangers, decorate your yard with azaleas and trees.

              Then there is authority. Drive on the right side of the road. Pay your taxes, don’t dump trash in the ditch, don’t steal. Even so far as breath air or the body quits working or space must be traveled to get from one place to another.

              But authority goes much deeper and even extends into the basic operating rules of MEST and personal interaction. I have been looking at this for some time. Authority is both desired by and then detested by an individual. You WANT to be a member of a group so you SUBMIT to the operating rules and mores of the group and environment. You also want OTHERS to submit to the rules, so authority is desired, but it restricts yourself so it is, again, a suppressor.

              Authority can be a method of bringing order without the hassle of every member of the group being responsible for every other member. It relieves individuals of the constant necessity to control everyone and everything.

              It begins with a desire to be a member, often sparked by suggestion or observation. It is then indoctrinated willingly by instruction and experience. If you learn these rules and do these things and not these other things, and if you operate in this manner, you will have a great time. Then it becomes enforced. If you do this or don’t do that, we will kick you out. Then punishment. If you do this, we will put you here and you can’t get out till we say so.

              This goes all the way back to the laws of motion, communication and even to individuality and how we think. This is a key ingredient in the “Trap” described by Hubbard and other philosophers. Obsession to buck authority and to go along are alike aberrations which have these desires and enforcements at their heart. Rules and enforcement had and have their use and allowed for much fun in the early days, but have become very conflicted and aberrated as of late.

              This is a larger area of confusion than previously thought and quite a rich area of inspection. It can eliminate the phenomenon of small being, big being, and can resolve the conundrum of “Absolute power brings absolute corruption”.
              I’m still investigating.
              Mark

              • Very interesting Mark. Very interesting. It kind of aligns with what I mentioned about bypassing upwards needing to be part of the equation. As “authority” is a one way command flow downwards.

                • Thanks, Oracle.
                  You said:
                  “As “authority” is a one way command flow downwards.”

                  I am discovering more and more that that is part of the problem. Getting stuck on mechanics such as flow, balance, facsimiles, mass, energy, identity, consciousness, on and on.

                  I am sure you have noticed various individuals saying “this is the way it is” and another saying “NO, this is the way…”, on and on. When someone says “Mass hangs on to an individual when he puts his head into a radio cross wave at 4.5 GHz and waves his arms around……”It all gets kinda silly when I get a glimpse of the guy who made that up so that he could buzz around and say “Look at me”. (Close to an actual incident.)

                  Don’t get me wrong, to operate in this environment it is necessary to understand these so called ‘rules’. Interaction with others has it’s place. Understanding the details of living in order to be causative has it’s place. But the way people hang on to constructs of any kind is fascinating.

                  My Father once said that “Grammar and correct literature is easy, once you realize how unimportant it really is. Then you can master it.” Many things are the same way. The mechanics of life can be mastered once you see how unimportant they really are.
                  Have fun with it.
                  Mark

      • True-False is binary logic. It can be presented more rationally as a scale with infinite gradients with one end approaching TRUE and the other end approaching FALSE. There is neither an “absolute truth” nor and “absolute falsity”. There is only relative truth and relative falsity.

        I cannot understand the following statement:

        FRIEND: “All logic should include Create .. because it is the source of Yes or No or Maybe”

        Why do we have to assume an absolute cause for “Yes or No or Maybe”? These attributes may simple exist relative to each other. Why should there be a CREATE?

        .

    • “All things, ideas, events, etc., are ‘empty,’ meaning they don’t cause or define themselves, but arise and cease due to conditions.”

      I like this awareness of conditions.

  17. I just orderd this, and I noticed Targhas some pretty interesting titles, including one about “non-localized consciousness”, which rings a bell with me.

  18. Maybe someone can explain to me the difference between “cause and effect” and karma.

    • Here’s your Huckleberry (Theo) sending you back full circle, right where you like to be: I am not impressed by your oversimplifications, Marty. The cause of it I don’t know but I guess we will soon find out. If anyone cares to listen to what Ron has to say in full about cause and effect and the two types of postulates (the homo sapiens, to which obviously Marty refers and the theta postulate) then listen to PDC-07 A THETAN CREATES BY POSTULATES – Q2.

      • Another Thought

        Ah yes – the Dead Agent caper.

        “Huckleberry” – ha. Didn’t miss the reference here. Most popular “staff” movie up there with “Shawshank”.

    • Karma is essentially a very complex cycle of action that is moving forward towards its completion in slow motion. There is a sense of inevitability associated with it. If that cycle is hindered then all kind of repercussions result from it. Again those repercussions force the movement of that cycle toward its completion.

      For example, a person borrows some money. To complete that cycle the debt needs to be discharged. If it is not discharged as it was agreed upon then various repercussions come about. This cycle continues to influence all those associated with it, one way or another, until that debt is discharged.

      >

    • My problem too .. when LRH spoke about Cause and Effect and his intentions to cause it was confusing because both goes together .. always a one to one game .. anyway .. for me the karma was to accept both of it as reality ..

      • The dichotomy of “cause-effect” lies within the universe. “Cause” cannot be extrapolated to exist outside the universe and independent of it. That is a contrariness or inconsistency.

    • Karma is when you hang around to be the effect of your own create. In order to escape it one must have no trace of narcissism. Where did that come from? Me. All of your set backs only come from you. People are only the effect of themselves in this universe. That is my understanding. I am sure it does not align with any one else’s. And why should it? That wouldn’t make sense either would it? Because we live in a world where people are totally certain, “What is true for you, is true for me. and what is true for me , is true for you.” And that in itself is narcissistic.

      • What is “me” or “I”? That very concept speaks of a fixation.

        • Malarky. I don’t think you are really asking a question you are curious about. I think you just wanted / needed to get a personal dig in. What you imply may be a fixation may also be an awareness. Me and I concept is an awareness. If I couldn’t see the distance or separation between us, and know who and where I was, that would be an outpoint. We are not all one and the same. At least from where I view. The word “I” is a differentiation, not a fixation. When I use the word. Your implication that my use of a word denotes a handicap or some form of insanity is a wrong item for me Vinaire. Not sure I care to run around behind you either to clean up the abracadabra you lay upon the table for others. You. You. As in the source of it, not me.

          • This is violation of Discussion policy and mindfulness.

          • My sense of “I” is why I am wearing heels today and not one of my son’s sneakers to the office. My sense of “I” is how I know what folders I am supposed to be dealing with on my desk. My sense of “I” knows which clients coming in today are mine so I get up to meet them when they walk in the front door and I get paid for my work. Distancing myself between me and other two hundred agents in my office, creates a money flow to ME, not “the universe”. I have wins being “me” and “I” on certain days of the week.

          • When your pay check gets put in someone else’s hand, let’s see how fixated you get on being you.

      • “I” can be used as a reference point, or “I” can be used as a point of fixation. This was the difference between Heraclitus and Parmenides.

        When one says, “Karma is when you hang around to be the effect of your own create,” it is assuming Parmenides viewpoint.

  19. I am not impressed by your oversimplifications, Marty. The cause of it I don’t know but I guess we will soon find out.

    If anyone cares to listen to what Ron has to say in full about cause and effect and the two types of postulates (the homo sapiens, to which obviously Marty refers and the theta postulate) then listen to PDC-07 A THETAN CREATES BY POSTULATES – Q2.

    • Another Thought

      Yup – just remember that the data is coming from the mouth of the guy that had an Doctorate of Philosophy from Sequoia University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_University). That’s definitely a creation from that postulate. Not enough people agreed, I presume.

    • I’m your Huckleberry (Doc Holiday) to Johnny Ringo in Tombstone.

      Just in case you might have needed a translation …

      Windhorse

    • I have an issue with LRH’s understanding of the concept of Cause as expressed in Factor #1. I have posted my analysis of Factor #1 on this thread.

      >

    • Theo.. I personally don’t give a shit about what that your God says about anything.

      • Theo.. I personally don’t give a shit about what that your God” correction

        Should be ” Shit about what your God..”

    • Wow — evaluation and invalidation, ad hominem attack and appeal to authority logical fallacies, all in one sweet post.

    • Theo says; ” I am not impressed….”. Theo, I don’t think it matters to anyone but yourself. No one is trying to impress you. Your tone indicates that you seem to impress yourself. Hope that will suffice.

    • Nolongercareaboutscn

      Oh…oh…me…me!

      That’s what I want.

      More of what RON says!

      It is always so illuminating.

    • Theo, this is Marty’s blog. I think people read here because they want to know what Marty has to say. You constantly imply that Marty doesn’t deserve to have any say. Somehow your Identity as a Scientologist puts you in a position to discount the value of others.

      If people want to know what Hubbard has to say, they would be reading his books instead of reading Marty’s blog. People read here because they want to know what Marty has to say.

      You clearly are not curious about what Marty has to say. So why are you reading what Marty has to say?

      I read what Hubbard has to say often. I read what Marty has to say, often. I read what Marty has to say and while I have read it, I have managed to get myself and four other people up the bridge. Because of what Marty has had to say. And in spite of some of, your “standard tech” siblings.

      You only read what Hubbard has to say and you have not managed to move on the bridge at all. In spite of the fact that I once offered to send someone to Greece to audit you, or to fly you to Texas to get audited by Marty.

      I think it is you Theo, that is oversimplifying things. You think as long as you keep some blinders on and “have faith”, you are going somewhere when you are not. I think since you can’t get yourself GOING, you think the best you can do is STOP.

      You are the one in a doubt condition, if you think anyone can discount what you know to be true. If you didn’t think Marty was a threat, you wouldn’t be trying to stop him. And Either would David Miscavige and the other fanatics. It is YOU people that are in doubt. It is YOU people that are afraid to take off the blinders. Afraid some reality adjustment will take away from all you know, instead of adding to it.

      Yet you come here or go to his home or go to his friends or create enemy camps and publicize “security”. And Marty’s failures to live up to some standard because you can’t think out of the box or think with YOUR OWN MIND. You think it must be either his or Hubbard’s. It doesn’t occur to you to think with your OWN. To respond to his post you have send a Hubbard tape reference.

      I understand it is working out best for you to think with someone else’s mind.

      But Marty wants to think with his own and so do other people. That is supposed to be a product of an enlightened person. Even by Hubbard’s standards. Yet is pisses you and a lot of other people off when someone reaches that state.

      It is you people that fail Scientology. Not Marty, not me, not us. You are still living on borrowed mind. We prefer to stand on our own.

  20. I entered Scientology with a good background in science. I evaluated Scientological data against my background science knowledge at every step of the way. I was staggered at times by the correlations that would occur between that background knowledge and what LRH wrote, and what I experienced firsthand as cognitions, abilities gained and paranormal phenomena. While that list is extensive, the phenomena closest to the Effect/Cause line of the OP was the experience of increased space.

    To be aware through a volume that encompassed my body, a large room and an adjoining large room was a singular experience that was interpretable not through the science of physicality but more so through the materials of Scientology. This event I mentioned was singular in that I had an almost tactile awareness of the contents of the space. This was different from pre-Scientology exteriorizations where I had had visual but not tactile perception. (It was those earlier exteriorizations that had caused me to initially see Dn as a means of discovery of what was going on.)

    The conclusion of importance here is that space is directly associated with a being.

    The significance of this spacation phenomena is that it fits not with classical physics and the concept of space as a nothingness, but certainly with quantum mechanics where the idea exists of consciousness being responsible for certain observable states of “matter”.

    In the quantum case, consciousness ( which I’ll call an awareness volume or space) – is seen to cause the collapse of “the wave function”, forever forcing an observed electron to behave as a particle when in an unobserved state it would behave in a wavelike manner.

    This entire behavior of particle-wave duality is the ultimate head scratcher for physicists but does, in fact, resolve if one considers the universe to be an engineered construct in which the fundamental building block is the same space that is created by an awareness unit.

    That is a tall claim and one I am willing to defend, albeit it may take a book to describe adequately. The notion is, though, something which should not be too inconceivable to anyone who has sufficiently exteriorized to be aware that they are an aware volume.

    How this all relates to the OP is that it points to the origin of this universe as a created, caused universe rather than being a universe of ambiguous or unknown origin.

    How can all this hinge on so singular a medium as space? Well, consider a baseball – a static thing when sitting on the shelf but when hurled by a pitcher who knows all the tricks and mechanics of putting various spins on the ball it becomes practically like a living object changing its path seemingly at will as it traverses distance and time. Similarly, by instilling spin into space that space is given a unique characteristic that then allows it to interact, or not, with other spaces having similar or different spins.

    Spin is an easy and already scientifically accepted concept to get across in how space can be manipulated, but an even more important aspect is geometry. Consider the baseball: if it’s round it behaves as a baseball (a sphere, 3 dimensions); if it’s flattened it might behave as a really thin frisbee (a disc, 2 dimensions); if it’s squished into a cylinder it might behave as an arrow (a line, 1 dimension). Thus the same component, when altered in geometry, behaves differently and will interact differently with other things: the “arrow” (line) might always pierce the sphere-baseball but may only pierce the disc if there is an optimum orientation.

    Add to spin and geometry the property of vibration – which in the case of space is a phenomenon of expansion and contraction – and you have just about all you need to make energy and then matter.

    While this may be more than a consideration of how thought has evolved on this planet, I think it is equally important to keep an eye on what thought can evolve to. We may be emerging from an era of suppressed thought and just getting to a point of “normal” may be an adequate goal. For those who still wish to stretch their wings, the consideration of innate ability to cause is still a valid consideration.

    • Very good. As a non-science type, what you wrote even made sense to me.
      It relates to what I think of as ‘knowing by pervasion’.

      • “It relates to what I think of as ‘knowing by pervasion’.”

        Or knowing by BEING the “object.”

        • Like a rock?

        • I never thought of it that way, but I suppose that could be what the phrase means. It is similar in that I think of pervading as extending space to include whatever I was wanting to know about and looking at it from both the outside and the inside, or something like that. Yes, I can see how it could be desribed as “being it”. However I never thought of it in terms of specific objects, but as pervading entire scenes, sequences of action, or entire “holograms”. One can pervade anything, entire ‘karmas’ or whatever

          • I have read some people’s (such as Elizabeth’s) descriptions of actually pervading a physical object – being it, in the sense of occupying the same space – and thus being able to perceive every iota of it from the inside out, all at once.

            But what you described I think is similar to what I have done – which is basically to “look” at some particular subject of thought in a general way and then “know” about it. Some people might call this tuning into the Akashic record!

            I got the phrase ‘knowing something by being it’ from 8-8008, where “object” is defined as “any unit manifestation of energy including matter.” And thoughts themselves are manifestations of energy no different from physical universe energy, just of a higher, finer wavelength.

    • 2ndxmr: “To be aware through a volume that encompassed my body, a large room and an adjoining large room was a singular experience that was interpretable not through the science of physicality but more so through the materials of Scientology. This event I mentioned was singular in that I had an almost tactile awareness of the contents of the space.”

      I had a somewhat similar experience when I did the Sunshine Rundown, which was done outdoors. My org was located in a rundown part of the city with a lot of bums around, etc. The EP of the Rundown for me was to suddenly experience everything around me – the streets, buildings and people, including the bums – as all being part of my space, part of ME. The other totally unexpected occurrence was that the bums were looking at me with affinity! I got that they felt something different in me too. That was a wonderful “effect” in my book.

      • p.s. That was just a note on how I can relate to your personal experience, but I think my experience also supports your whole theory. You wrote:

        “This entire behavior of particle-wave duality is the ultimate head scratcher for physicists but does, in fact, resolve if one considers the universe to be an engineered construct in which the fundamental building block is the same space that is created by an awareness unit.”

        From the viewpoint of science – a theory is as good as it explains the known data. Bottom line.

    • You took somewhat of a quantum leap when you hit this point: “This entire behavior of particle-wave duality is the ultimate head scratcher for physicists but does, in fact, resolve if one considers the universe to be an engineered construct in which the fundamental building block is the same space that is created by an awareness unit. That is a tall claim and one I am willing to defend, albeit it may take a book to describe adequately.” I don’t consider it a ‘tall claim’ as much as an invented arbitrary along the order of ‘before the beginning there was a cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of an effect.’

      • I don’t consider it a ‘tall claim’ as much as an invented arbitrary along the order of ‘before the beginning there was a cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of an effect.’

        Lacking further elucidation that is not an unreasonable conclusion. As I said, it may take a book to explain it. Even then, in lack of physical proof of observations key to the hypothesis only those who have been able to make similar observations are likely to agree in whole or in part. That is the understood nature of this sort of endeavor.

        • Thanks. It is not so much lack of physical proofs that creates some dissonance for me. I think it is more the tendency to default back to the ‘I’ as creator. I wonder how much one even holds a sense of self apart from anything else in such peak experiences. My similar experiences are concomitant with a sense of losing self, letting go of the considerations mocking myself up as separate than the rest of the universe. Perhaps it is a taste of non-duality. Perhaps this defaulting back to such stable data (as contained in the ‘The Factors’; inclusion of ‘causation’ and I) is why – by broad survey – it seems that scientology connected peak experiences are so short-lived, and often never-again experienced.

          • This sense of “I” is where it all begins. Part of my practice for some time now is simply watching this sense arise.

            It is so interesting to observe. And so liberating to not attach oneself to it when it arises.

            Then the cause for action comes from a more spontaneous intuitive deep place insted of “I want” ” I am.”

            It is also interesting when the sense of “I” dissolves, any conflict with “others” dissolves. That is because the sense of “you” arrives only after the sense if “I” is conceptualizer.

            This wonderful process is so beautifully revealed in marriage. My wife and I can dissolve conflicts now almost instantaneously.

            Another result in the dissolution of “I me mine” is a return of childlike wonder for life.

            Young children can still retain that spontaneous being without the conditioning and imprinting of the need to form an ego.

            On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with having that sense of “I” as long as it is not taken so seriously.

            As actors in the game and on the stage, our “I” should be played with gusto and real ness. But when the play is over, we should remove the makeup, take off our wardrobe without a fuss. Then go home after a fun romp with our fellow actors.

            Neti Neti means: not this not that. Our true natures are not the roles we play not the objects in the play. We are Spirit, ever free, ever joyous, ever conscious, ever existing- Sat-chit-ananda.

            • +1

            • BRIAN: “This sense of “I” is where it all begins.”

              This is not so. To me it is awareness where it all begins. The sense of “I” is an additive.

              .

            • BRIAN: Then the cause for action comes from a more spontaneous intuitive deep place insted of “I want” ” I am.”

              In my opinion, a “cause” is made up of a summation of various vectors in a scene.

              .

            • BRIAN: It is also interesting when the sense of “I” dissolves, any conflict with “others” dissolves. That is because the sense of “you” arrives only after the sense if “I” is conceptualizer.

              This wonderful process is so beautifully revealed in marriage. My wife and I can dissolve conflicts now almost instantaneously.

              Another result in the dissolution of “I me mine” is a return of childlike wonder for life.

              That is wonderful.🙂

              .

            • Childlike wonder is the result of awareness that is accompanied by simple mindfulness.

            • BRIAN: On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with having that sense of “I” as long as it is not taken so seriously.

              “I” is just a mental object. You look at it just as you look at any other object.

              .

            • BRIAN: Neti Neti means: not this not that. Our true natures are not the roles we play not the objects in the play. We are Spirit, ever free, ever joyous, ever conscious, ever existing- Sat-chit-ananda.

              Neti, Neti means that we are not any consideration… not even the consideration of Spirit.

              .

            • Well said. I think the question of how subjective selves come into being is very fruitful. There was the theory that selfhood is illusion and we are all one; there was a theory about lots of eternal individual spirits. The truth might be something different to both.

              Could it be that a sense of “I” arises from opposed postulates? If one being cannot hold both postulates simultaneously, there would be a division into self and not-self. The field of not-self can then be subdivided into objects and other beings known as “you”. Resolving the postulate opposition would resolve the boundary of a self.

              • Before wondering about how a sense of “I” arises, one should consider how the sense of any “form” arises. “I” is simply a type of form with certain properties..

                From Beingness, Viewpoint and Reality

                Beingness is “existing-ness.” A phenomenon exists as a spiritual essence and a physical form. The spiritual and physical aspects go together. They cannot be separated as some absolutes. A spiritual state will have physical form, no matter how subtle. And a physical state will have some spiritual characteristics, no matter how subdued.

                Thus, an atom has a configuration and certain properties that express its essence. Both of these physical and spiritual aspects go together to make up the beingness of an atom.

                Beingness is inclusive of both form and essence.

                .

                • Quite right, Vinaire. Postulates on the spiritual level become directed forces on a physical level. A self has a form defined by postulates, and the form of an atom comes from a balance between the energy of the electrons making them expand away from the nucleus and the positive charge on the nucleus holding them in.

                  Atoms are like soap bubbles, which expand from the air pressure inside until this is balanced by the tension of the soap film plus the external air pressure. Stars and living cells are shaped on the same principle, their roughly spherical outline is where expanding and contracting forces balance.

                  D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson wrote a marvellous book ‘On Growth and Form’ showing how biological forms from cells to whole organisms are shaped by balances between forces – efforts and counter-efforts, in fact.

                  • David, how do you compare a postulate to an assumption?

                    To me scientists make postulates to explain observed phenomenon. Here the observed phenomenon is senior to the postulate.

                    I think that Hubbard twisted the meaning of this word to make his philosophy senior to the observed phenomenon. Now that is really weird.

                    • I was thinking of Hubbard’s defintion as a ‘causative thought’, or Dennis Stephens’ ‘causative consideration’. Also Gerbode in ‘Beyond Psychology’ said a postulate has a double structure of creation and assent. You can create an idea of a thing without implying that it actually exists, but if you postulate it into existence you’re also assenting to its reality.

                      If the word is used much in science these days as an alternative to hypothesis, it would be as you say. The observations come first, then a postulated explanation that, to be useful to a scientist, also needs to be a testable hypothesis.

                      One difference between postulating and assuming is that an assumption is an example of what Michael Polanyi called tacit knowing. Something we know and act on without bringing into focussed awareness. On the other hand, a postulate is explictly known, as when Euclid asked his readers to agree that parallel lines never meet. A scientific paper should state all the relevant assumptions (thus putting them into the category of postulates), but the most basic ones tend to get overlooked as if too obvious to need stating.

            • “This sense of “I” is where it all begins. Part of my practice for some time now is simply watching this sense arise.

              It is so interesting to observe. And so liberating to not attach oneself to it when it arises.”

              Who is not attaching and is thus liberated?

              • Very good question!🙂

                It the liberation from “who” itself. Haha!

              • LG, that has been my question too. There seems to be a conflation by some between an individual’s assumed identity – or “ego” – and an individual as a spiritual being – a “nothingness” in terms of physical universe constructs.

                • Liberation, is liberation from ignorance. Liberation is liberation from identification with objects, bodies, roles etc.

                  But more exactly, liberation is the dissolution of mind. It is the mind that holds all of the ideas of being identified with externalities.

                  In a dream at night we are convinced of the “real ness” of our situation. We have emotions of pleasure, fear, fun etc. but when we awake, the entire universe of that dream recedes back into its source.

                  The dreamer remains to tell the story but the objects have dissolved.

                  Similarly, this material cosmos, or any other for that matter, is very similar. Only the laws of solidity are different.

                  We can withdraw the dream by turning our attention within to commune with the 8th Dynamic. This state is the memory of our true natures as consciousness.

                  It is not a state of nothing. It is a positive state of incredible joy and wisdom.

                  And when externalities and false identities are melted by the fires of inner discriminatory wisdom, the true nature of being is effortlessly intuited.

                  Until then, philosophers and scholars will argue on the nature of being.

                  That is because they are still trying to measure the Infinite by emtying the ocean with the timbal of analysis.

                  The mind cannot fathom the Spirit because the mind is largely composed of information gleaned from the 5 senses. And because the 5 senses only registrar a very limited vibrational scope of the spectrum, the mind cannot of itself, cognize the soul.

                  And because the mind cannot fathom the infinite, intellectuals, though their motives are good, say that the soul or God or Spirit does not exist. That is because their prana or energy is mostly in their brain or head: always thinking and not experiencing pure feeling, I don’t just mean emotion, I mean pure feeling. We have both natures: feeling and reason.

                  The ancients say:

                  We are ever existing, ever conscious and ever joyfull. Such beauty and wonder, my eyes sometimes tear with happiness. Then there is such love for others my tongue cannot tell.

                  “I came to the mango grove to eat mangoes, not count branches.”
                  Ramakrishna

                  If I could wave a magic wand and bestow on my fellow human beings what I a learned of life and spirit, I would easily give my life up for that.
                  It’s that good🙂
                  Namaste
                  Brian

                  • Forgive my curiosity, Brian, but I asked, quoting you:

                    “This sense of “I” is where it all begins. Part of my practice for some time now is simply watching this sense arise.

                    It is so interesting to observe. And so liberating to not attach oneself to it when it arises.”

                    Who is not attaching and is thus liberated?

                    • Hey Letting Go, please forgive my taking so long. I’ve been out of town on vacation and my iPhone or iPad cannot handle these posts when they get very large.

                      You said,
                      “Who is not attaching and is thus liberated?”

                      That my dear friend is the 64,000 question: the soul-you.

                      Or if you are inclined to Buddhist terminology; the sentient being.

                      Through the process of evolution, a verity that LRH was ignorant of and denounced as an implant, we as sentient beings experience the imprinting of material environments, in various stages of evolution, in various bodies that have sundry perception apparatus, potential and ever increasing mobility.

                      At those early stages of evolution our growth is guided by nature. Our mind files are molded by the lower natured bodies and environments we live.

                      So, a tiger expresses a tiger nature, a fish exhibits a fish nature. There is no karma for animals and lower creatures because there actions are predetermined by nature HerSelf and are not independent from that nature.

                      In the human being we have the capacity for independent action governed by sovereign choice . We have the freedom to go against our own nature through that choice.

                      We have come up through a line of evolution from simple to more complex forms. And in the human being we have incredible imaginative and creative powers where the intellect can cognize an infinity of possible realities and work to create them and “become” them.

                      We can say” I am an artist”, “I am so beautiful”, “I am ugly”, I am more important than you”, “I am this body”, “I am my thoughts” etc.

                      It is in this imaginative assignment of identity to the roles we play, the bodies we inhabit, the universe we reside, that we start on the road to suffering.

                      If my happiness in life is identified with my wife, one day I will be unhappy because, as Lord Buddha says,”all compound things are subject to decomposition.”

                      So, Letting Go, the “who” is YOU.

                      And what we are liberated from is the imaginary assignment of that YOU from the make believe world of name and form.

                      Neti Neti is sanskrit which means “not this, not that.”

                      We are the dreamer who spins out dreams from our own selves. Then we forget that we are the makers of all we experience: our bodies, emotions, occupations, universe etc.

                      Through the game of forgetting we entertain ourselves until we are tired of pain and suffering. Then we turn within to remember.

                      When we awaken from a dream at night where we were experiencing something unpleasant we laugh and are relieved that it was just a dream.

                      Similarly, the sage awakens from the dream of this world, and all of the names and forms, and is joyful, realizing that all the pain and suffering were shadows projected through the filters of the lower evolutionary mind; identified with form.

                  • That was a nice post, Brian.

                    Namaste /|\

                  • Hi Brian,

                    I’m new here, and I really like your posts.

                    I agree with your belief in evolution. I think that when an asteroid hits a fertile planet, their physical heavenly body is destroyed, but not the tiny spirit. The impact of the asteroid creates the building blocks of life, and the tiny spirit is free to begin the trip up the ladder of the animal kingdom, learning as they go. The end is humanity – the big brains.

                    Until we reach human, our brain is not capable of accessing God. Once we earn a human brain, we can then consider ourselves and our place in the Universe. God can then ‘pray’ to us to guide us in our tasks as immune cells. God and other Big Heavenly Bodies have souls that can also be born into human bodies to help guide the immune system.

                    I don’t agree with Karma. I believe it is a misinterpretation of the law of heavenly motion ‘for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction’. I don’t think ‘as above, so below’, is the rule. I believe it should be ‘as below, so above’. We are supposed to look at our complex body and brain and realize that God’s body and brain are analogous. Deep inside of us is the key factor in our health, our immune system. Likewise, deep inside of God is His key factor for health, His immune system – humanity.

                    Earth is currently in a state of ‘unhealthy’. Earth has AIDS. The Universe can’t let it spread. I believe we have the tools necessary to fix the problem, but humanity has fallen prey to ‘sleep’. Once awakened, there are sufficient numbers to tackle any task and win.

                    I look forward to your opinion. I don’t want to know what ancient sages say because I want to know what you feel about what I say. But quotes from ancient sages are always appreciated, as well.

                    Have a wonderful day!

                    Granny

            • Brian. That was so heartfelt. I absolutely agree with you. I had tears in my eyes for you being so real with your feelings. I try to live my life the way you have written it. It is truly liberating.

          • Very interesting, My experiences have been so varied, and so have been my perceptions of anything that I sense, including the “I”, that I eventually gave up trying to define things with such precision or certainty.
            The closest that I came up, which I sort of feel more comfortable with, is that my experience of the Universe including any sense of self seems to completely change with my state of mind at the moment.
            You nailed with the sense of letting go, which as far as I’m concerned is an inseparable part of all of theses experiences.
            Crowley and Hubbard got themselves in a pickle trying to will a permanent self into all of this. So we need BALANCE.

            • Well put.

            • I am with Heraclitus rather than with Parmenides.

              “Heraclitus [c. 535 – c. 475] believed in a world of perpetual change, of eternal ‘Becoming’. For him, all static Being was based on deception and his universal principle was fire, a symbol for the continuous flow and change of all things. Heraclitus taught that all changes in the world arise from the dynamic and cyclic interplay of opposites and he saw any pair of opposites as a unity. This unity, which contains and transcends all opposing forces, he called the Logos….

              “A drastic step in this direction was taken by Parmenides of Elea [c. 515/540 -c. 450] who was in strong opposition to Heraclitus. He called his basic principle the Being and held that it was unique and invariable. He considered change to be impossible and regarded the changes we seem to perceive in the world as mere illusions of the senses. The concept of an indestructible substance as the subject of varying properties grew out of this philosophy and became one of the fundamental concepts of Western thought.”

              Hubbard and Crowley went the way of Parmenides.

            • Beautiful Conan. You are a true seeker. It’s nice to read your from the heart writtings.

          • I find the following from THE TAO OF PHYSICS very enlightening.

            Ground State of Universe – History

            .

          • I tend to think ‘peak experiences’ are usually short-lived. I like Wilbur’s idea that there are stages of development and that if the earlier ones are not fully achieved, any experiences of the later or ‘higher’ ones will not be properly integrated by the person. There are many ways to reach a ‘peak experience’.
            Many Tibetan and Sufi teachers can induce such an experience in another, but they usually don’t without extensive preparation of the person being induced. Often it is done by a simple physical touch. But the preparation is necessary, and part of being a ‘teacher’ is having the judgement about when is the student ready? Because if the student is not ready, it can be a wasted effort.
            Peak experiences can also be induced by drugs, LSD is ‘famous’ for this, but that is a particularly dangerous way to go IMO.

            • This and your later comment about lsd are very relevant to scientology.

              • Thanks. I agree. Ron found ways to create peak experiences rapidly. To his credit he did recognize there could be problems with individuals “going up the pole”, but gives it scant mention that I know of. But all the ‘undercuts’ he worked out trying to create “The Bridge” could be considered as addressing the problems with it.
                I had tried LSD.
                Then, years later, I got a peak experience the “legitimate way”, by working hard over a long period of time – I did the 2 “Zero” TRs for probably hundreds of hours to eventually achieve the ‘major stable win’ experience. It was worth it. I have retained that to a large extent. After an LSD trip you come down a few hours later, and may be worse off than you were before. I think most people would be worse off.
                Abraham Maslow studied peak experiences and the states of mind of the people experiencing them. His first book was “Towards a Psychology of Being” and is still relevent today.
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow

          • Back in the 1960s, in Berkeley CA, I met several people involved with SUBUD, which involved the practice of ‘the latihan’, a way of inducing a peak experience. I did not try this particular ‘way’, but had it, and the specific experience, described to me. I believe Subud still exists. Bu the practice of ‘latihan’ is more wisespread, in southeast Asia in particular. The word itself is Malay.
            http://en.wikipediaorg/wiki/Latihan

          • Robbie Basho was a true master of the steel string guitar, both 6 and 12 string. He studied with Ali Akbar Khan, a master of the Indian sarod, a lute-like instrument.
            This song is about the dangers of LSD induced peak experiences. Here is what he said on the liner notes:
            -Song of the Snowy Ranges
            “Definition of a bummer – too much too soon
            Definition of acid – Karmic Cosmetics
            Bringum-back-alive-Basho’s contribution to the ant-acid campaign. Better to wait 3 years for a good thing than to push it and get “jammed”.
            From beneath icy pinecones,
            The breath of peace.”
            ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWgs7aZsPE

            Listen my son to what I tell you,
            I who hold the Reins of Time.
            The passageways are dark and narrow,
            The Snowy Ranges hard to climb.

            High Himalayas she’s an icy stallion
            Warmed by the blood of men who love to ride
            But do not mount her, till you are ready,
            Or be like me and sorely tried.

            The bride of Christ, she’s too hot to handle
            Like fire through the fingertips.
            A ruby sword, a golden pommel,
            The Queen of Death pressed to the lips.

            Down in the valley the bulls have assembled
            White tusks gleaming in the night.
            A grave before them, bones of desire
            For I have long since taken flight.

            As I lay sitting in the sunlight,
            My wounds do slowly, slowly heal.
            The Royal Nights, the Golden Lanterns
            The mountain horns around me peel.

            High Himalayas she’s an icy stallion
            Warmed by the blood of men who love to ride
            But do not mount her, till you are ready,
            Or be like me and sorely tried.

          • I had not seen this comment of Marty’s before.

            “I think it is more the tendency to default back to the ‘I’ as creator. I wonder how much one even holds a sense of self apart from anything else in such peak experiences. My similar experiences are concomitant with a sense of losing self, letting go of the considerations mocking myself up as separate than the rest of the universe. Perhaps it is a taste of non-duality.”

            Whoa, Marty.

            I have to sit down and take a breather on this one.

            I’ve never tried to characterize, or even understand, these types of peak experiences. But now that you point this out, I think you are right.

            To re-lable Scientology “cognitions” into “peak experiences” brings a very valuable set of teachings from psychology into comparable magnitude.

            In college, even before Scientology, I had a psychology professor tell me that my “peak experiences” were sticking me into old patterns of behavior from which I should have moved on because my life had changed.

            Is this the pathology one acquires from Scientology WINS, too?

            Even without any consideration of Scientology, I can see the value of this idea in my own life – peak experiences tend to stick me into past modes of living – long after those modes have moved on..

            Great fricking point, Marty.

            I’m really thinking about this now. Thanks for this. This is huge.

            You should expand on this idea of peak experiences. This may be the key to unlocking Scientology from a self-identity!

            Holy shit. You aren’t just a pick-up B-Ball player who meddled in Taoism on the beach in the public parks of Cali, are you?

            Or are you?

            Alanzo (:>

            • Some distinction needs to be made here between peak experience and abilities gained.

              To use a basketball achievement for a bit of an analogy, I think a peak experience is more like making a trey first time on the court. That single peak experience has little to show in comparison to ability, which is more on the order of playing like a Steve Nash or Michael Jordan.

              If you get stuck in the win of that first three pointer then maybe you will be prone to sticking to old behaviors as well. But if you use the peak experience as a guide to attaining ability you are more likely to constantly modify behavior in the direction of improved ability.

              • That was a good and thoughtful post, 2ndxmr.

                The peak experience that my psychology professor said was sticking me was my 14 month backpacking trip through Egypt, Israel, Greece and Morocco. After I got back, things in the cornfields just weren’t the same for me any more. And that was bothering me. I wanted to take off again and go to South America and study monkeys in the rain forests with a local anthropology professor.

                I ended up getting involved in Scientology instead.

                I think peak experiences keep you coming back for more.

                I don’t know that you can make such a cut and dried re-definition of a peak experience into an “ability gained”, and therefore avoid the data that psychology has amassed about human behavior and peak experiences.

                I think Scientology “wins” are peak experiences, and they are the primary item that sticks a Scientologist into Scientology, even after clear and obvious harm is being done.

                Here’s more on Peak experiences.

                http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201009/big-moments

                Alanzo

                • Alanzo, thank you for the most excellent, uplifting and informative article.
                  http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201009/big-moments

                • Thank you for the link Alanzo..

                  ” I think Scientology “wins” are peak experiences, and they are the primary item that sticks a Scientologist into Scientology, even after clear and obvious harm is being done.”

                  Wins.. It’s like a drug addict trying to score..

                  This poem written by a junkie could also be applied to those still locked in the trap of Scientology mind set.

                  “Some, they didn’t make it.
                  The temptation just too strong.
                  How can darkness cloud the mind
                  To what I know as wrong?”
                  ― Kimberly Nalen, Beautiful Junkie: Poems about Addiction and Recovery

                • Alanzo:”I don’t know that you can make such a cut and dried re-definition of a peak experience into an “ability gained”, and therefore avoid the data that psychology has amassed about human behavior and peak experiences.”

                  I was trying to contrast the two, show them as not the same, not to redefine one as the other.

                  I read the reference you provided and got a clearer idea of what the psychology idea of peak experience is. I have no problem with it.

                  (From the “big-moments” reference:)”Some extraordinary moments happen spontaneously, but others can be encouraged by our own decisions and behavior.”

                  This is largely the route I try to use for progress.

                  My primary interest is determining the physical science correlations to the particular peak experiences that I and others have had that cannot be framed within materialistic knowledge. I entered Scientology with the intent to use its accumulated knowledge and methods to assist and forward research into this area. Sure, once in – and being told of the completeness of Scn – I agreed to set aside my own research and learn Scientology as much as possible along the ‘standard’ lines. What I saw – tech-wise – that was applied ‘standardly’ was pretty amazing. What I experienced was equally amazing, but, yes, I was chained. Now those chains are gone. Now I can take prior experiences such as spacation and causatively re-create them. Now I can take my observations of those new experiences and analyze them. Now I am well beyond any former peak experience and have experienced abilities gained. Baby steps, sure. But even the Olympic hurdler had to start with baby steps.

                  • 2ndxmr –

                    I knew my exchange with you would produce something like your excellent response.

                    Thank you for that.

                    You even got me a little excited at what I myself might achieve “spiritually” through a “peak experience”.

                    I think that, throughout human history, lots of people have experienced the kinds of things that Scientology produces as “wins” in human beings.

                    When you read the history of Mesmer in France, for example, you begin to realize that Hubbard only exploited something that had been used on people many times before.

                    But if ethical and well-meaning people can produce genuine peak experiences and NOT exploit their customers’ spiritual vulnerabilities in order to enrich themselves?

                    Hay. Maybe there might be something to this spirituality shit.

                    Alanzo

                    • Alanzo:”Hay. Maybe there might be something to this spirituality shit.”

                      Hey. Maybe there is. There is at least a lot of anecdotal evidence to be figured on. Achieving a peak experience may require a personal path but I think knowledge of phenomena and mechanics greatly shortens and guides one on that path. Given enough viewpoints generally something settles as a common denominator that then becomes a basis for the next step.

                      Any endeavor in this area needs a ferocious conscience. You wear that hat with tireless alertness but I would be thrilled to see you put on the hat of explorer, too. Beats self-flagellation by a hair and ‘old warrior salve’, hands down.

                    • Spirituality can be summed up in one sentence: “There is appearance and disappearance.” This is the prime aspect of spirituality.

                      Speculations are speculations. They do not amount to spirituality.

                    • I’ve never taken off the “hat” of explorer.

                      What’s funny is that I’ve noticed that some people get very fearful of my explorations. For instance, I recently read Micheal Shermer’s “The Believing Brain” and “Why People Believe Weird Things”. I consumed them, actually.

                      But Shermer is an atheist. And a friend of mine, with whom I have been “exploring” spiritual things for decades, actually became fearful when I related how much I was getting out of these books.

                      Since they were books with a skeptical foundation, this person was fearful that they would “lose me” if I became some kind of atheistic materialist. You would see this fear in the spouses of new Scientologists at the mission, too.

                      Apparently, wearing the hat of “explorer” is fine for people as long as you don’t explore too far and always stay in familiar territory to those around you.

                      These atheistic materialist’s books, written on a highly skeptical foundation, improved my Buddhist meditation to a whole new plateau – one which I had never been able to get to based on my studies of Buddhism alone.

                      Hubbard divided spirit vs MEST, and most emphatically told Scientologists that becoming MEST was the whole problem with the spirit, and its whole reason for becoming “degraded”. This is false. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the MEST universe. And a spirit is not degraded at all from dealing in it, learning its laws, and embracing its own MEST nature, too.

                      Believe it or not, pointing out where Hubbard exploited and abused people, and coming to understand exactly how and why that is spiritual exploitation and abuse, is also a highly spiritual exploration.

                      If you are a REAL spiritual explorer, you go EVERYWHERE in your explorations – especially where a guy like L Ron Hubbard warns you never to go!

                      Heh.

                      Alanzo

                    • I got what you said about being an explorer. Glad to hear it. At some time I would like to hear some anecdotes of things you’ve experienced in your explorations.

                      Regarding your comment: ” There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the MEST universe. And a spirit is not degraded at all from dealing in it, learning its laws, and embracing its own MEST nature, too.”

                      Are you applying 4-value logic with this conclusion?

                      If you did, would not the values be something like:
                      0) the MEST U(niverse) is wrong and the spirit is degraded
                      1) the MEST U is not wrong but the spirit is degraded
                      2) the MEST U is wrong and the spirit is not degraded
                      3) the MEST U is not wrong and the spirit is not degraded

                      One could argue that some beings are degraded.

                      One could argue that some MEST is degraded.

                      In doing so one would falsify an apparent two valued proposition such as the portion of your comment I’ve referenced.

                      It actually becomes apparent that even 4-valued logic is inadequate. At least 3 more values are needed: “none”, “some”, “all”.

                      A bit more exploration would probably reveal the need to include dimension, as well:
                      0) not true in any sensed or unsensed dimension
                      1) true in some/all sensed dimensions but not in unsensed dimensions
                      2) not true in sensed dimensions but true in some/all unsensed dimensions
                      3) true in some/all sensed dimensions and some/all unsensed dimensions

                      This multi-valued logic approach increases the accuracy of a statement using the logic but makes “truth” a bit wobbly. But that is nothing that a good arbitrary can’t handle.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      You’d do yourself a service to take up my reading recommendation. You make mockery of four value logic.

                    • 2ndxmr wrote:

                      “If you did, would not the values be something like:
                      0) the MEST U(niverse) is wrong and the spirit is degraded
                      1) the MEST U is not wrong but the spirit is degraded
                      2) the MEST U is wrong and the spirit is not degraded
                      3) the MEST U is not wrong and the spirit is not degraded

                      You’ve got something like the four “flows” in Scientology mixed up with four valued logic… or something.

                      This is not applying four valued logic to my statement.

                      What Marty said: Read up on 4 valued logic from the book he recommended.

                      Please! This is painful!

                      Alanzo

                    • If this is the meaning of 4-valued logic:

                      “the great second-century dharma master and teacher Nagarjuna introduced a four-valued logic system in which statements about the world can be (1) true, (2) not true, (3) both true and not true, (4) neither true nor not true” (Targ)

                      then

                      ” There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the MEST universe. And a spirit is not degraded at all from dealing in it, learning its laws, and embracing its own MEST nature, too.” (Alanzo)

                      is not a consequence of applying 4-valued logic, but is an arbitrary, improbable, yet absolute conclusion, and is no better an example of logic than is the example of a solution based on 2 variable Aristotilean logic.

                      If “a spirit is not degraded at all from dealing in it” is true then all prior arguments about the evils of Hubbard and the cursed Scientology and the degradations suffered by anyone falling into the clutches of it are falsified.

                      Or will that be “they’re falsified and not falsified”?

                    • 2ndmxr –

                      OK, let’s step back a second and look at what a conclusion is.

                      A conclusion is the result of reasoning.

                      So if I see that all men are mortal.

                      And Socrates is a man.

                      Then I can conclude – I can make a “statement about the world” – that Socrates is mortal.

                      If my first and second premises are true, then it is highly likely that my conclusion “Socrates is mortal” is true too.

                      My conclusion was the result of my reasoning.

                      In 2 valued logic, I can only deem my conclusion, or my “statement about the world” as TRUE or FALSE. I have no other choice.

                      In 4 valued logic, I have 2 more choices. My statement about the world (my conclusion) that Socrates is mortal could be both true and false.

                      Like say, “yes Socrates’ body may die, but his spirit lives on!” So my conclusion that Socrates is mortal is BOTH true AND false.

                      See?

                      It’s “a four-valued logic system in which statements about the world can be (1) true, (2) not true, (3) both true and not true, (4) neither true nor not true”

                      So my conclusion that “a spirit is not degraded at all from dealing in the physical universe” could be deemed by you to be:

                      1. True
                      2. Not True
                      3. Both true and not true
                      4. Neither true nor not true

                      Up to you. But now you have 2 more bins to decide with than you did before.

                      So

                      Bob’s your uncle.

                      Alanzo

                    • And one more thing about using 4 valued logic to evaluate this “Socrates is mortal” statement.

                      Let’s just stay physical and not get into any spiritual stuff, and say “Yes, Socrates is mortal, his body dies. But because his student Plato wrote down so much about him, he lives on and is – in that way – not mortal, too.

                      If I only had TRUE or FALSE as my only 2 choices, I would have to block out these data about the real life situation of Socrates in order to decide EITHER true OR false.

                      If I said it was false that socrates is mortal, then I would have to block out or discount the fact that his body is dead and he will never use his mouth to speak again as Socrates.

                      If I said it was true that Socrates is mortal then I could not acknowledge that his work lives on in the form of Plato’s writing.

                      2 valued logic does not allow you to take into account ALL there is to a situation when you are evaluating it for its real life truth or falsity.

                      Thus, controversies RAGE ON and never get settled – only because the 2 valued logic you are using to evaluate it is incapable of acknowledging ALL the pieces there are to a real life situation.

                      This has been a public service announcement for 4 valued logic.

                      4 Valued Logic: Try it. You’ll like it!

                      Alanzo

                    • Alanzo:”So my conclusion that “a spirit is not degraded at all from dealing in the physical universe” could be deemed by you to be:”

                      It (that statement) could be deemed by me to be first hand evidence that 1984’ish double-think isn’t just a failure among the clubbed seals but is alive and well in your x-valued universe; x because it’s now an unknown as to how much spin goes into your yarn.

                      Sure, you can get all airy-fairy about it and say no one can really be hurt because they’re immortal beings, but if you do I will ask you to please place your scrotum between vise jaws and then crank the jaws closed until you have a new peak experience. And I would hope that along with that peak experience is a realization that someone else might hold you to similar standards that you hold those who hold up workable aspects of Scn as having value.

                      As to the actual full workability of 4 value logic, I think we’ve just proven it to be of limited workability due to the entrance of falsifiability. It wouldn’t take too much to prove that you’d have to go in the direction of infinity valued logic to ever get past a definite-maybe except-that conundrum that is always a source of falsifiability, and even then the only absolute truth may be the all-false condition of zero.

                      So, in the mean time we resort to acceptable “truths”: truth in a limited number of variables, with laws and limitations on the variables. It is complex but is the only sane way of operating. It requires judgement, and as we know, “Good judgement comes from experience. Experience – well that comes from bad judgement.”

                    • martyrathbun09

                      You still haven’t a clue about the application of four-valued logic. To the extent Alonzo is attempting to make definitive statements against it, neither does he. I don’t know that he is but you seem to be alleging as much.

                    • 2ndxmr, here is a little site that explains the difference between ‘deductive fallacies’ and ‘inductive fallacies’. I beieve it confirms what you are saying, in easy-to-understand terms:
                      http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
                      They are also called “formal” and “informal’ fallacies. In a formally fallacious argument, the conclusion is either absolutely true or absolutely false.
                      In the inductive or ‘informal’ case, absolute conclusions are unobtainable, at best a conclusion can be “very probably” true. That’s the infinity valued solutions or conclusions you’re talking about.

                    • In many ways, 2ndmxr, we are, like Mike Rinder says, “two ships passing in the night” on this.

                      When you use the word “falsifiability” for instance, I think you mean “proven wrong”, and not the definition as it comes from Karl Popper and the Philosophy of Science.

                      So I get confused by your use of that term.

                      And then there is a seeming disconnect between us on the purpose and use of logic at a fundamental level: I’m not seeing your use of logic to be similar to my use of it at all.

                      I was trying to step back and create a basic, common ground kind of place from which we could even begin discussing this, but it doesn’t seem to be working.

                      Marty’s book suggestion I think is still a good one. I have found that some articles on wikipedia are especially complex on the subject of logic, and many of them are not good write ups to use in discussions with Scientologists.

                      So maybe someday we can find that common ground with which to continue this discussion. We’re not there yet, I do not think.

                      Alanzo

                    • @Alanzo The Cause/Effect thread is a little old now but I’ll send this final semaphore to your passing ship:

                      Let’s say:
                      1) true = a jar of red licorice sticks
                      2) false = a jar of black licorice sticks

                      then is
                      3) “both true and false”
                      a) a jar finely ground black and licorice paste, or
                      b) a jar containing both red and black licorice sticks

                      and is
                      4) “neither true nor false”
                      a) an empty jar; absence of any licorice stick, or
                      b) a jar of green licorice sticks, or
                      c) a closed can which does not allow you to detect the presence or absence of any possible color of licorice sticks, or
                      d) a jar of nails
                      ?

                    • 2ndxmr –

                      Again, I am trying to understand your position, and where you are coming from. But your examples are not making sense to me yet.

                      See, determining whether something is true is not a thing. It’s an action.

                      Determining the truth of something is your use of discernment.

                      This article, from epistemology, the branch of philosophy that deals with the study of knowledge (the real one!) talks about the ways people use to determine if something is true.

                      In epistemology, criteria of truth (or tests of truth) are standards and rules used to judge the accuracy of statements and claims. They are tools of verification. … The rules of logic have no ability to distinguish truth on their own. An individual must determine what standards distinguish truth from falsehood. Not all criteria are equally valid. Some standards are sufficient, while others are questionable.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth

                      You’ll note that L Ron Hubbard said that the way to determine if something was true was “Truth is the exact determination. Truth is the exact time, place form, and event.”

                      But there are other ways to determine whether something is true. And it’s always good to know some of those other ways than just the one Ron said.

                      So look over those ways that people use to determine if something is true.

                      Read over the article and let me know if you can relate these ideas to the use of 4 valued logic.

                      Alanzo

                    • EDIT:

                      “Truth is the exact CONSIDERATION. Truth is the exact time, place, form, and event.”

                  • Great post!

                    I hope Al sees that there are more definitions of “Scientology” than just the one he insists on using. And also sees that one can leave Scientology behind and still take with him what s/he’s gained – and move forward from there.

                    • Marildi are you saying that you have left Scientology behind?

                      ” And also sees that one can leave Scientology behind and still take with him what s/he’s gained – and move forward from there.”

                      I’m confused.. because I’m not seeing it.

                    • Marildi wrote:

                      And also sees that one can leave Scientology behind and still take with him what s/he’s gained – and move forward from there.

                      Who says I haven;t done that?

                      Alanzo

                  • “You still haven’t a clue about the application of four-valued logic.”

                    That statement may be both true and untrue.

                    • 2ndmxr:

                      “That statement may be both true and untrue.”

                      GREAT!!

                      Now investigate what’s true about it.

                      And then investigate what’s untrue about it.

                      See? It is a tool for further discernment and exploration of the way things actually exist.

                      Alanzo

        • Marty is right when he says that in peak experiences, even the sense of self is gone.

          Buddhas sense of self is limited to the sense of body only. Mentally, there is to trace of ego (fixed considerations). The only thing fixed is the body as an instrument of use, and there is a limited need to take care of the body and to keep it alive.
          .

    • 2ndxmr: “This entire behavior of particle-wave duality is the ultimate head scratcher for physicists but does, in fact, resolve if one considers the universe to be an engineered construct in which the fundamental building block is the same space that is created by an awareness unit.”

      Here is my explanation for particle-wave duality:

      Quantum versus Classical Reality

      We assume an electron to be like a Ping-Pong ball. We then apply the Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty to its location around the nucleus of an atom. This is Quantum reality.

      Why can’t we assume an electron be like a piece of wave that extends in space like a snake. Then we can do away with the Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty. That would fit more with the classical reality.

      Einstein was opposed to Quantum reality. He would have preferred this snake analogy for an electron. The following ia a quote from the excellent book EINSTEIN – HIS LIFE AND UNIVERSE by Walter Isaacson, Chapter 20, Quantum Entanglement.

      Einstein’s fundamental dispute with the Bohr-Heisenberg crowd over quantum mechanics was not merely about whether God rolled dice or left cats half dead. Nor was it just about causality, locality, or even completeness. It was about reality. Does it exist? More specifically, is it meaningful to speak about a physical reality that exists independently of whatever observations we can make? “At the heart of the problem,” Einstein said of quantum mechanics, “is not so much the question of causality but the question of realism.”

      Bohr and his adherents scoffed at the idea that it made sense to talk about what might be beneath the veil of what we can observe. All we can know are the results of our experiments and observations, not some ultimate reality that lies beyond our perceptions.

      .

      But Einstein seems to be protesting against what he himself contributed to with his idea of photon and his Theory of Relativity.

      It seems that quanta of light (photons) shall be packets made up of finite number of wavelengths. In that case, a photon will also be shaped more like a snake than a Ping-Pong ball. If the number of wavelengths per photon is constant then low-energy ELF photons shall be like very long snakes, and high-energy gamma photons shall be like very short snakes. We may then call very long snakes as waves, and very short snakes as particles.

      Furthermore, Einstein denied any need of a medium for light. He denied the Newtonian absoluteness of space and time but replaced it by the absoluteness of the speed of light, thus upsetting the reality of classical physics. But Einstein seemed to backtrack from his mathematical reality later in life.

      The above quote continues as follows.

      Einstein had displayed some elements of this attitude in 1905, back when he was reading Hume and Mach while rejecting such unobservable concepts as absolute space and time. “At that time my mode of thinking was much nearer positivism than it was later on,” he recalled. “My departure from positivism came only when I worked out the general theory of relativity.”

      From then on, Einstein increasingly adhered to the belief that there is an objective classical reality. And though there are some consistencies between his early and late thinking, he admitted freely that, at least in his own mind, his realism represented a move away from his earlier Machian empiricism. “This credo,” he said, “does not correspond with the point of view I held in younger years.” As the historian Gerald Holton notes, “For a scientist to change his philosophical beliefs so fundamentally is rare.”

      Einstein’s concept of realism had three main components:

      1. His belief that a reality exists independent of our ability to observe it. As he put it in his autobiographical notes: “Physics is an attempt conceptually to grasp reality as it is thought independently of its being observed. In this sense one speaks of ‘physical reality.’ ”

      2. His belief in separability and locality. In other words, objects are located at certain points in spacetime, and this separability is part of what defines them. “If one abandons the assumption that what exists in different parts of space has its own independent, real existence, then I simply cannot see what it is that physics is supposed to describe,” he declared to Max Born.

      3. His belief in strict causality, which implies certainty and classical determinism. The idea that probabilities play a role in reality was as disconcerting to him as the idea that our observations might play a role in collapsing those probabilities. “Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe,” he said, “that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance.”

      .

      What happened in 1905 was that mathematical reality replaced physical reality starting with the Theory of Relativity. This has continued with Quantum Mechanics even to this date. The article The Philosophy of Cosmology attempts to reverse this trend and reestablish the realism of physical reality.

      .

    • +1 for that evocative description of exteriorization! Reminds me of when I discovered that I could get impressions of texture and mass on almost anything that I could contact by sight. Or walking down a street and feeling the 3-dimensional volume of buildings on the other side.

      Space might be considered as an ‘experiential’ or ‘phenomenological’ aspect of beingness. Space doesn’t have to be the gulf separating a tiny individual from the rest of the world. It can also be the individual’s beingness embracing that world.

      • Yes. That’s what I mean by’pervading’.

        • Oh, wow. Thanks. That makes the idea of pervading or being an “object” more clear – whether the object is physical or mental. And now that I think of it, what 2ndxmr said about an “almost tactile” awareness I could go along with too. Awareness of one’s space seems to be like that – an almost tactile “perception.”

  21. Marty’s Blog is fast becoming an Internet Sangha.

  22. In actuality, Radical official Scientology take the position of CAUSE
    ensuring every step of the way YOU are the EFFECT.
    And if you don’t wake up and obey Scientology Inc causation, and agree to be the meek EFFECT, why there is Fair Game, revelations of your confessional data, and the weight of RICO conspiracies at OSA INT plotting to “destroy utterly..”…

    • Another Thought

      Ah yes:,”Ideal Org” cause, “buy your way out of Ethics” cause (as if one’s conscience can be quantified by $$$), “study the Basics” cause, “IAS” cause, “slavery” cause – ad nauseum.

      I believe Hubbard used to say you could tell what the leadership was like in an organization by how the organization operates. It is radical officialdom at it’s finest right now.

    • A bingo for me reading your post. I never quite saw it that way til now, thank you. On reflection, yes, I was always the Effect and whatever higher up I dealt with was the Cause.
      Years ago when I wrote, in reply to a harsh controlling letter, my resignation, it was the first time I stood up to my so called friend or the organization. It felt so good to finally speak my mind, stand up for myself and say what I believed was true.

      • Interestingly, when I told one of the KOTs at Flag, by phone, that I wanted my money back and that I would complain to the BBB among other actions if I didn’t get it, he acquiesced right away. As it turned out, it had actually been a “courtesy transfer” from the local org, so I went to them to get it and there were no obstacles placed in my way. I attributed that to those folks at the org who were old friends/acquaintances, but now I wonder if they also had input from him at Flag. He was old-school and reputed to stil be one of the good guys. Can’t think of his name at the moment.
        However it is true that I had a medical problem, and the refund was part of the “secondary gain” I got from having the problem. I certainly did need the money at the time! 🙂 However, Flag had already managed to unload a set of the Basics on me previously, so I didn’t get that portion back.

  23. Another Thought

    Well, I started reading the book, the Tao of Physics. I was particularly impacted by the author’s own cognizance of the fact that the universe could be likened to a dance – all particles moving in concert and harmony, or dissonance, et al. – to which I have a lot of practical experience with in body/mind fusion aesthetics. Personally, at this stage of the game, I could give two $hits as to “what Ron says” about anything anymore, however, the fact is that I reached into the subject for greater answers. I appreciate the reference to delve into.

  24. An Analysis of Scientology Factor # 1

    The very first Factor of Scientology states:

    FACTOR # 1: BEFORE THE BEGINNING WAS A CAUSE AND THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE CAUSE WAS THE CREATION OF EFFECT.

    .

    Let’s examine this Factor.

    1. “Beginning” implies the beginning of any manifestation. This includes the universe as an overall manifestation.

    2. If Cause is postulated to be there before the beginning then the question arises, “Can Cause be there all by itself before its effect manifests itself?” An overall effect would be the creation of the universe.

    3. If the answer is “yes” then Cause will be a manifestation on its own right, and the question then becomes, “What is the cause of the Cause?” This logic inevitably leads to an infinite regress of causes, and the beginning keeps getting pushed back earlier and earlier.

    4. If the answer is “no” then the Cause must occur simultaneously with effect. “Cause-effect” would then be part of the same manifestation at the beginning. One may say that God and Universe must have appeared simultaneously as a pair.

    5. One tries to fix the dilemma in (3) by postulating “Uncaused cause.”But this postulate appears to be self-contradictory and simply a device of convenience.

    6. Thus, CAUSE seems to be part of the created considerations. This seems to be consistent with the idea that TIME itself would start at the beginning.

    7. Thus, there would be no such thing as “before the beginning.”

    8. Thus, CAUSE is part of a system of interdependent considerations. It is part of the creation like anything else. There is no linear chain of considerations as implied by the factor above.

    9. The idea “before the beginning” would then be a projection that is created after the fact of beginning. Thus, the idea of God as the Creator would appear after the fact of Creation.

    10. The assumption that CAUSE, a consideration in itself, can be separated from, and can be extended beyond, the system of considerations it generates, seems to be the basic inconsistency (contrariness).

    .

    Thus, it appears that beginning is simply there. We do not know how the beginning of creation comes to be. We may try to explain or justify it with arbitrary postulation, but the fact remains that we do not really know the answer.

    This conclusion is uncomfortable to face. That is why we get postulates like “Uncaused cause,” “God as the Creator,” and Scientology Factor #1.

    .

    • I used to wig out about this stuff when I was a kid. When was the beginning of time? But… there had to be something before the beginning, but there has to be a beginning. Yikes! Also – where does the universe end? But, what is beyond the end? There has to be an end, but there can’t be an end. It has to go on forever, but there has to be an edge to it all.

      And the thing is – yes. There is an infinity of potential time, and an infinity of potential space. If we take this entire universe, and imagine it inside a pingpong ball, it is easy to imagine a whole roomful of pingpong balls, and a whole bunch of rooms with pingpong balls. If you take the track of 13.8 Billion years, which is the age of this universe, and mark it as a foot long piece of string, it is easy to imagine one hundred feet of string, each one its own universe timeline. Who knows but the Big Bang isn’t just a hiccup from the end of one of the pieces of string? And maybe the string is just one long loop? Who know?

      No one. We don’t know. We only sort of know an extremely little slice of this little universe. Even when we gaze at stars, we are looking at things that happened long, long ago. Who knows but the universe is being swallowed by another – we won’t know for thousands, or more likely, millions of years.

      This is all a mind-cuss. But it has to be considered because infinity exists.

      • Well, I learned a new phrase “wig out” meaning “to make or become wildly excited or enthusiastic.” Is that a British slang?

        My operating basis is to start out with the broadest concept and then narrow it down. Here is what i looked at sometime back.

        SOMETHING AND NOTHING

        Beginning means a beginning of something. This something continues in one form or another until it ends. From beginning to end something is manifested. From the end of a cycle till the beginning of the next cycle nothing is manifested.

        Beginning starts with the manifestation of something. A “something” can be the flimsiest of thought or the heaviest of heavenly body. It can be any manifestation whatsoever.

        Space and time are abstract dimensions representing the extent and duration of manifestation. When “something” manifests successively till the end of the cycle, we get the sense of TIME. Time depends on a primary manifestation persisting over a duration. Therefore, Time would begin with the beginning and would continue until the end.

        Persistence of the manifestation of something brings about the sense of TIME.

        When there is no longer any manifestation, the cycle has come to an end. From the end till another beginning, there is no manifestation, and no time either. There is simply NOTHING.

        NOTHING is “absence of manifestation.”

        Science is a study of manifestations. The primary manifestation seems to have the aspects of energy and matter. The secondary manifestation seems to be space and time. So far science has not grappled directly with the absence of manifestation, or NOTHING.

        Science presupposes SOMETHING to be there. It is looking for a “cause” that is supposed to exist before the beginning of the universe. That “cause” would still be something to be studied by science. Thus, that “cause” may very well be considered a part of the universe. Scientifically, before the beginning would be NOTHING.

        Science cannot go into the beginning of universe as long as it presupposes SOMETHING to exist before the beginning.

        Logic and Mathematics are based upon thought. Without thought there can be neither logic nor mathematics. Thus, logic and mathematics presuppose thought to be there.

        Thought is just what is being employed in these essays. Thought is not NOTHING. Thought is “something” that would have to manifest at the beginning for logic and mathematics to be there. Therefore, neither logic nor mathematics can go before the beginning of universe. However,

        Thought may look upon “before the beginning” as “potential of manifestation.”

        The Big Bang Theory seems to confirm a great deal of observations; and it comes quite close to describing the beginning but it does not address the beginning itself.

        To describe the beginning of the universe then, one may have to speculate upon the nature of NOTHING.

        And that would give us another universe.

        .

    • Interesting and, as usual, very intelligent summation from you, Vinaire.
      As far as I see these two things (cause and effect), these are just another third density dichotomy.
      The whole concept of “at the beginning there was cause and its only purpose was a creation of an effect” is just a construct to attempt to explain why anything can be “created”.
      The truth (as I see it) is that there are densities where cause and effect are unnecessary because there is no difference between them.
      It is hard to conceive of this in a third density mind frame, where we all have to think in dualities to be able to make anything sound logical.
      Even logic is effected by this. I strongly believe that in higher densities (from the sixth on up) logic has completely different dynamics and what may be logical in those densities isn’t logical in this density.
      We live in a universe that is comprised of dualities; however, this universe was not “created” by dualities. It was conceived by a “source” that stems from a density that does not have dualities and therefore its workings are uncomprehesible to those who think in binary, trinary or even quaternary logic.
      I am quite certain that we will be able to understand quantum mechanics better once someone will start to think “outside the box” of dualities and cause and effect. This includes also the duality of beginnings and ends. There is probably no need to have a beginning or an end, at higher densities.
      We need to remember that most of the terms of reference, for the most simple things we experience, are expressed in dualities or multiples them. Things like these are a dichotomy but we often do not think of them that way: beggining/end, cause/effect, creation/destruction, life/death, night/day, birth/death, and so on.
      We live in a density that has to, has to, has to have these dichotomies to be able to function — as a corollary (another example of third-densitiy dual logic), anything that even vaguely conveys “oneness” or singularity is often misunderstood, hard to comprehend and often shunned or dismissed.
      The message of “being one with the universe” has been degraded (also by scientology) to mean “losing once individuality”.
      However, individuality (I am sure I do not need to be telling you this) is just another dual construct to identify oneself in this density. Higher densities may not need one to be an individual to be aware — and awareness may be something entirely different at those levels.
      In conclusion, the reason why we have so many questions about why we exist and why the universe we live in is the way it is, may be answered when we spot the fact that dualities appear to make up this universe, which in fact was created (or brought about) by higher densities that did not think in dualities.
      A good read is a book entitled The Prysm of Lyra by Lyssa Royal and Keith Priest.

      • Thank you Flavp. Could you please explain your concept of “density”.

        Thanks.

        • Dear Vinaire,
          To be precise, I will quote the above book:

          “As science has discovered, matter is densified energy vibrating at a specific rate. Every aspect of the universe is made up of energy. In Earth technology, it has not yet been discovered how to measure certain portions of reality. If technology possessed the ability, an infinite number of gateways into time, space and dimensions would be seen For the time being, the seven frequency levels that Earth’s galactic family fragmented into by passing through the Prism of Lyra will be explored below. From this point forward, the term “density” will be used to refer to these frequency levels.”

          And here is a brief description of the seven densitites, as described in the book:

          FIRST DENSITY — Awareness as a point. Physical matter.
          SECOND DENSITY — Awareness as a line. Biological matter; development of group or species identity.
          THIRD DENSITY — Volumeric awareness; Ego; Loss of group identity, development of individual identity; ability to remember past and cognize the future, while retaining present awareness.
          FOURTH DENSITY — Containment of volumeric awareness; superconsciousness; reintegration of group identity without loss of ego identity; as vibration increases, perception of past, present and future become more fluid, along with the ability to interface with multidimensional and multidensity realities; negatively oriented consciousness becomes more difficult to maintain.
          FIFTH DENSITY — Experiential awareness of “I”, as a group identity; not bound by linear time.
          SIXTH DENSITY — Awareness as the dimension itself.
          SEVENTH DENSITY — Awareness as the multidimensional experience; group-matrix identity (Social Memory Complex).

          Definitions:
          Density — density denotes a vibrational frequency and not a location, which the term dimension implies. The density structure of this reality is primarily expressed in seven levels, though each level has sublevels within it. The density scale is a model used to communicate one’s perception of orientation in relation to other realities.

          Ego– Ego is the “I” or self, as distinguished from the selves of others. It is that part of the psyche that is conscious in physical reality and acts as the mediator between inner and outer worlds.

          Frequency — Matter is vibrating energy. Different vibratory rates denote the property of matter. Frequency is the rate at which molecules or consciousness vibrate.

          Galactic Family — The galactic family is the group of extraterrestrial beings (physical and nonphysical) who are interrelated energetically and/or physically with Earth’s development.

          Prism of Lyra — This is the archetypical idea of the entrance of consciousness into this reality. For Earth’s galactic family, the entrance point exists within the Lyran system. As consciousness/energy emerged, it fragmented into seven density frequencies, much as a prism would fragment light into seven visible colors.

          Social Memory Complex — this term refers to a mass consciousness or a nonphysical group-matrix identity that has evolved from a physical society.

          ————–
          In other books on the subject, there are mentioned others densities above number seven — it appears there are 12 in total.
          Hope this answers your question.
          Flav.

          • Thank you Flavp. The sequence of these densities in reverse seems to parallel the DISTUBANCE LEVELS in KHTK. Please see the graph here.

            The Nature of Form

            .

            • I’m having a bit of trouble understanding this concept of “disturbance”. Can you define it for me in simple terms?

              • Yes, awareness and disturbance are the same thing.

                If you are out in space all by yourself, you will have no idea of whether you are still or moving if there is nothing else beside you. Awareness comes with relative motion only.

                This datum sits at the interface of physics and metaphysics.

                >

                • OK, still this is not a definition. I can’t attempt to understand you and be understood by you unless you define the terms of this exchange. What is the actual definition of disturbance, as you understand and use it. Please, write a definition, if it isn’t too much trouble.
                  Act like you are talking to a retarded child, when you speak with me, and we’ll get along just fine.

          • FLAVP: “As science has discovered, matter is densified energy vibrating at a specific rate. Every aspect of the universe is made up of energy. In Earth technology, it has not yet been discovered how to measure certain portions of reality. If technology possessed the ability, an infinite number of gateways into time, space and dimensions would be seen For the time being, the seven frequency levels that Earth’s galactic family fragmented into by passing through the Prism of Lyra will be explored below. From this point forward, the term “density” will be used to refer to these frequency levels.”

            Yes, I believe that inertia and density increase with frequency of electromagnetic disturbance. I have presented these as disturbance levels. The prism of Lyra is just a metaphor. How these disturbance levels increase are described in the following essay.

            The Nature of Form

            .

            • Of course the concept ofthe Prism is a metaphor. It appears that when those that entered this density to create human life (per the book referenced above, they were called the Founders and came from a 5th density dimension), the energy split into seven different vibrations, like light through a prism.

              • In my opinion, it is incorrect to assume that reality starts with beingness as you are doing here.

                “Who” created the human life? “Who” are these Founders? Who created these Founders?

                The problem with such “hypotheses” is a basic fixation on “who” or beingness.

                • Probably, reality does not start with beingness. The fact that these Founders may have created the human blueprint in this reality does not mean they created this reality — they created the human blueprint. I cannot put it in any other plain term else than saying that they are our “galactic forefathers”.
                  As far as creating the All of Reality, well, the question, as far as I am concerned, is still unanswered.

          • FLAVP: “FIRST DENSITY — Awareness as a point. Physical matter.
            SECOND DENSITY — Awareness as a line. Biological matter; development of group or species identity.
            THIRD DENSITY — Volumeric awareness; Ego; Loss of group identity, development of individual identity; ability to remember past and cognize the future, while retaining present awareness.”

            Straight increase in frequency of an electromagnetic wave shall ultimately lead to formation of electrons, protons, neutrons and atom.

            As these atoms interact with each other, more complex molecules are formed until macromolecules, such as, DNA are formed. These macromolecules have enough number of electrons to act as micro computers. This is the basis of life.

            As life units are formed, there overall property becomes the ego. Ego is the final summation of all the vectors generated by all the microcomputers in a body that are designed to direct the body..

            .

            • Vin:
              “As these atoms interact with each other, more complex molecules are formed until macromolecules, such as, DNA are formed. These macromolecules have enough number of electrons to act as micro computers. This is the basis of life.”
              Mark:
              A completely MEST centric philosophy.

            • The way i look at it, it is 50% physical and 50% spiritual. It appears that on 1st and 2nd density, the spiritual side isn’t sufficiently aware to separate self from others. This occurs in 3rd density.

              • It appears that you are assuming spiritual and physical aspects as separate and independent of each other. This is like the old view of consisdering Space and Time to be separate and independent of each other.

                I think that absolutist view is no longer applicable to reality.

                • It appears that I am not communicating to you in the same language, somehow. No, I do not believe that the spiritual and the physical are independent. I believe they are two facets of the same thing — two types of energies intimately connected. It’s just that their interaction develops, as they progress from lower densitiy to higher density.

          • FLAVP: “FOURTH DENSITY — Containment of volumeric awareness; superconsciousness; reintegration of group identity without loss of ego identity; as vibration increases, perception of past, present and future become more fluid, along with the ability to interface with multidimensional and multidensity realities; negatively oriented consciousness becomes more difficult to maintain.”

            This seems to be talking about transcendence beyond the individual ego. This does not happen when awareness gets introverted upon itself and gets into a figure-figure loop. This is essentially what the “awareness of awareness” is. An animal, who is simply aware, does not have this introversion loop. Man will fare better if he is simply aware and out of the “awareness of awareness” loop.

            The “awareness of awareness” loop is useful for higher intelligence only in the absence of inconsistencies as defined below.

            Inconsistency in KHTK

            .

            • I don’t think this is merely a question of fixing attention or dispersing it. It is possible that my understanding of “Inconsistency”, as defined in your reference, is limited.
              I have tried to read KHTK but I get bogged. Too much stuff I can’t understand.
              Still, I see this mostly as an expansion of one’s individual awareness to encompass all other individual awareness. A true brotherhood of man.

              • True brotherhood of man cannot be achieved as long as one is intoverted into oneself in the form of “I”. That introversion comes from the belief that reality starts from a Being.

                Superconsciousness does not imply superbeing. All beingnesses do not merge into each other to make a supebeing. That would be like the creation of a Borglike entity (see Star Trek).

                Super consciousness arises only as the introversion as a being ends.

                • Dear Vinaire, resistance is futile — just kidding.
                  When I say “one’s individual awareness encompasses all others”, I do not actually mean one becomes a “superbeing”.
                  A true brotherhood of man is each individual being, being aware and in harmony with the other and, all together, working towards higher spiritual ability and so forth (whatever their goal may be).
                  At fourth density, as it is described in the above-mentioned book, one is no longer aware of only oneself but of everyone else, too. Each and every individual is aware of every other individual and therefore a true brotherhood can be achieved.
                  Of course, it comes out that, instead, it’s the other way around and we would become like the Borg, I am taking first bids on the Borg Queen position!!!!

                  • I really like this.

                    “A true brotherhood of man is each individual being, being aware and in harmony with the other and, all together, working towards higher spiritual ability and so forth (whatever their goal may be)”

                    .

                    It seems to me that an individual is not fully aware and in harmony with others because he is introverted into “I” or self. When he extroverts it doesn’t mean that “I” disappears. He is simply extroverted with optimum attention on self and in total harmony with it .

                    .

          • FLAVP: “FIFTH DENSITY — Experiential awareness of “I”, as a group identity; not bound by linear time.
            SIXTH DENSITY — Awareness as the dimension itself.
            SEVENTH DENSITY — Awareness as the multidimensional experience; group-matrix identity (Social Memory Complex).”

            “I” is just a mental object, which is a summation of vectors associated with a body. Similarly, a group identity is summation of all the vectors associated with a group. It is a complex matrix type layered awareness.

            Awareness as a dimension is the electromagnetic disturbance itself. It is the “substance” common to the whole spectrum of energy and mass.

            There are two aspects to awareness. From The Nature of Consciousness

            With awareness there is perception. The perception is followed by recognition of awareness. Awareness, by its very nature, then perceives, and the cycle continues. Thus awareness as a disturbance is an oscillation between perceiving and recognizing.

            Awareness oscillates between perceiving and recognizing.

            At a high degree of complexity awareness is viewing itself as called here Social Memory complex (a mass consciousness or a nonphysical group-matrix identity that has evolved from a physical society).
            .

            • I don’t necessarily view “I” as a construct or mental object. I view “I” as a centering of awareness. This does not mean that it can’t expand to encompass a greater amount of consciousness.
              Once again, we might have some sort of semantic dissonance, here, and we may be speaking of the same thing in different terms.

              • What is your definition of awareness? Is consciousness the same concept or a different concept? Does awareness or consciousness has a form?

                • Let me use allegory here:
                  Let’s consider consciousness as a vast body of water. This vast body of water is like a vast body of energy that has both physical characteristics (which can be measured) and metaphysical qualities, which can be experienced (I would term these “spiritual” qualities but the word ‘spiritual’ unfortunately has other connotations in the normal language, which I find may be misleading). These physical characteristics encompass all matter of quantitative phenomena. The metaphysical qualitites encompass all kinds of phenomena that can be felt and experienced, while not necessarily in a pure physical manner, which include the potential for perception, recognition, computation and finally thought.
                  This metaphysical potential for experience, which consciousness has, is awareness.
                  Now, let’s also envision that consciousness, being energy, physically vibrates — it has different forms in which it manifests. This is both at a physical level and at a metaphysical one. As it vibrates at different frequencies, different patterns of energy coalesce into different densities. Each density has different levels of awareness (potentiality of perception, recognition, computation and thought).
                  Now, a tiny drop of this body of water has the exact same potential for awareness as the whole; however, in order for it to sort of “wake up” and become individually aware (as we earthlings are), this drop must reach a level of “3rd density” in order to become “aware of its individuality”. As it progresses up the density levels, due to its vibration frequency changing, this awareness of self is not cancelled, it expands to encompass other awareness units (other drops in the body of water) and operates in concert with these. It does not become the other drops. It becomes aware of them and they of it. I envision that at the highest levels of density (the seventh) these drops of the vast body of water are so tightly aware of each other that there is maximum affinity, agreement and communication between them (the scientology concept of ARC) that it gives the appearance of them acting as one — however, I conjecture that it may be only an illusion.
                  Thus, my definition of awareness is the potential for consciousness to perceive, recognize, compute and think.

                  • Thanks for the above explanation. These are very interesting definitions.

                    Awareness = the potential for perception, recognition, computation and finally thought.

                    Consciousness = a vast body of energy that has both physical characteristics (which can be measured) and metaphysical qualities, which can be experienced

                    .

                    I have similar definitions where I also see a large spectrum of frequencies involved. My definitions are as follows:

                    Awareness = the spiritual component of elecromagnetic disturbance. The electomagnetic aspect progressively condenses as matter. The spiritual aspect progressively condenses as self.

                    Consciousness = self awareness

                    .

          • FLAVP: “Galactic Family — The galactic family is the group of extraterrestrial beings (physical and nonphysical) who are interrelated energetically and/or physically with Earth’s development.”

            I have no idea what this Galactic Family is. What objective evidence do we have for this that I can verify?

            .

            • Well, you’d have to read the book to get the full picture on this.
              As far as “objective” proof is concerned — well, the book has been gathered by information channeled by the authors.
              It is to be taken with a grain of salt, just like all other stuff kicking around in this world.
              I am not a fanatic advocate of UFO conspiracy theories, et al. I have informed myself concerning this subject, reading a vast number of people’s accounts and experiences and there are common denominators; amongst which, the fact that some alien forefathers entered this density to create the human blueprint
              Take out of this what you will, just as I did. To me, to use scientology parlance, “it indicated”.

              • In my opinion, just because some stuff is recalled, it does not establish the truth of it. This is where I differ from LRH and also from MarkNR.

                To me this is just sci-fi stuff. There is no objective basis to it either in terms of sciece or in terms of mindfulness (consistency).

                • Hi again, Vin.
                  Thanks for mentioning me as almost a central character in this play.

                  I consider your outlook and opinions to be just as important to you as are mine to me. I’m operating on a “You show me yours, and I’ll show you mine” basis. I’m gaining from the interchanges.
                  Mark

                • Vinaire,
                  I know I said that I did not get everything in KHTK but I believe that in the 12 or so points of mindfulness it mentions something about observing or perceiving something without a sort of “pre-judgement” — basically, perceiving something as it presents before one without other thoughts clouding your mind.
                  In view of that, how can you say this is Sci Fi? Just because it may not be categorized and defined, as per your own views of reality, it does not mean that it is fictional.
                  I can assure you that fiction is a misnomer, when it comes to the normal language. A lot of things that are considered fictitious are in fact based on true hard facts. It’s just that the normal public isn’t cognizant of them. I would use the term with a grain of salt. This is what, I, as a Sci Fi writer, found to be true.
                  In no way am I suggesting that you must believe what I say is true and factual but at the same time, at least for manner’s sake, be truly objective.
                  It is possible that what the people wrote on the book above is completely false — it is also possible that they are completely right.
                  I cannot tell you either way. If I am to be truly objective about it all, I have to give both you and them the benefit of the doubt.

          • FLAVP: “Prism of Lyra — This is the archetypical idea of the entrance of consciousness into this reality.”

            To me, reality itself is an aspect of consciousness. It is reality looking at itself.

            .

            • I am not in disagreement with this. Consciousness may be a mirror of reality — in fact, it is consciousness that creates (or to use a scientology concept: postulates) reality.
              However, reality, being a costruct of energy, vibrates at different levels. Some levels are lower than others. It appears, based on this book, that when consciousness from a higher vibration enters a lower vibration of reality, it splits into various frequencies, just like a prism with light. To re-enter the higher vibration, it needs to “re-integrate” itself. This is not to say that once, for example, a third density consciousness rises to seventh densitiy, and fully reintegrates itself and passes onto the next higher vibration or reality (a higher dimension), that it might not actually be fragmented in that higher reality, you follow?
              Then, it would need to reintegrate further to pass onto higher echelons of reality.
              It appears that, in this particular dimension, we may be a harmonic of a harmonic.

              • FLAVP: ” in fact, it is consciousness that creates (or to use a scientology concept: postulates) reality.”

                This kind of idea comes from the assumption that at the basis of reality is a Being. To me this is an inconsistency. because it leaves the question open as to what is the basis of the Being.
                .

  25. Thanks Marty. Another nice article. That book “the end of suffering ” was excellent. I ordered extra copies and gave out as gifts. Has some nice action steps in there too. I have not read the Tao book yet. If I look up and define the word “physics”, I may be more willing.

    • Another Thought

      If you don’t mind my chiming in, I don’t really know or care enough about physics to have a care to understanding above it being a body of knowledge based on physical mechanics. Yet – I am finding the book quite fascinating, regardless.

  26. I have a question for Marildi since she so closely adheres to LRH’s viewpoint.

    “Marildi, does LRH’s viewpoint seem to resolve some confusion for you? If so, can you describe it?”

    .

  27. I just love your post Marty.

    Want to shake up a 40 year Scn member? Just say something like this:

    “Any mind yet somewhat intact after years of adhering to scientology sci-fi mythology as cold, hard reality, still has the potential for seeing through the self-limiting constructs it has been persuaded to abide. ”

    I cannot stop laughing… it’s a total relief… Wow!

    Of course I know you are an old member too.

    Thanks for being there and communicating.

  28. The is only Now. Cause and Effect are illusion. Time is an illusion.

    That said, you punch me, I’ll feel it. It is a pretty powerful illusion.

    • “illusion” is an incorrect translation of the Vedic concept of MAYA. The correct tarnslation is a combination of the ideas of “impermanance” and “relativity.”

      • That may be true, but I am not translating it from the Vedic concept. I mean it as it means in English which is: Appears to be, but is not.

        • Sorry, but being punched is being punced. It is not an illusion.

          One may try to justify it as an illusion in their mind.

          • The punch is not the illusion.

            • Then please explain yourself. Thanks.

              • A punch is a communication from one person to another. The intention of the punch is real, the resulting feeling or pain is the illusion, as is the time the physical act takes up. “There is no spoon.”

                • I don’t quite understand this explanation. Why is the intention real but perception is unreal? What makes the intention real?

                  • Here’s how I am looking at this. You are across from person B. You and Person B are immortal spiritual beings.

                    Now – there is some question as to whether you and Person B are each unique beings, or are unique viewpoints of God (but are one with each other) or animated outcroppings of Matter, Energy, Space, and Time.

                    I am postulating that you and Person B are unique spiritual beings.

                    Person B, for whatever reason, wants to punch you. That “want” is an intention – and he chooses to use his fist to punch you. Person B exists, and his intention to punch exists. But the fist is an illusion, your and his bodies are illusions, the time taken to move the fist from Person B’s side to your body is an illusion. The only things, as it were, that are NOT illusions are you, Person B, and both of your attitudes and intentions, including Person B’s intention to punch you.

                    You could almost say that the entire universe was mocked up in order to allow Person B to punch you. It is a common ground allowing communications between beings. It is invented and agreed to by both of you, and you both have agreed to be bound by its rules – but it is still an illusion.

                    The pure Scientology view is that we beings collectively mocked up and agreed to the physical universe. My personal view is similar, but not the same.

  29. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    I asked Google for “the answer to life the universe and everything” .
    I got an anwer !
    Look for yourself 🙂

  30. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.

    Martin Luther King, Jr.

  31. AN ANALYSIS OF CAUSE

    The following statement seems to summarize very efficiently what is believed in most western religions and philosophies.

    “Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.”

    Judaism emphasizes God as the ultimate creator. Christianity makes God a personal being. Islam seems to de-emphasize that identity of a personal being by declaring God to be formless. However, God is still retained as the cause of all existence.

    Spinoza starts his philosophical system with the premise of “uncaused Cause.” Aristotle starts his philosophical system with the premise of “unmoved Mover.” The system of philosophy that follows from either premise is pretty rational. But is the underlying premise rational?

    Regardless of how rational a system of philosophy might appear, the logical consistency of that system is set by its starting premise.

    The premise “uncaused cause” seems to be an attempt to fix the unwieldy conclusion of the endless chain of causes when Cause is assumed to exist all by itself. “Uncaused cause” is just another arbitrary consideration. No wonder it appears to be self-contradictory.

    CAUSE is part of the creation, and has no meaning prior to the creation. Neither “Cause,” nor “Uncaused cause” is an independent premise. It is part of the system of philosophy it generates.

    What is beyond the sphere of considerations (philiosophy) may only be speculated. But a speculation being a consideration would remain within that sphere.

    The assumption that the consideration of “Cause” can extend beyond the “system of considerations” seems to be the basic inconsistency.

    “Cause” may appear to be consistent but only within a system of consideration and not beyond. What is beyond is unknowable and it cannot be symbolized as Cause.

    .

  32. This view may have implications for auditing, which, if I am correct, is usually undertaken in pursuit of a sole cause such as a basic trauma or action or decision on a chain of similar events.

    • I find the following observation very interesting.

      “Attention is aberrated by becoming unfixed and sweeping at random or becoming too fixed without sweeping.” ~ L. Ron Hubbard

      Attention helps us become aware of things. Normally we can freely direct our attention and put it wherever we want. But when we cannot do so, something is obviously amiss. This gives us a valuable tool for discovery.
      Pursue non-optimum attention to discover what is amiss.

      In KHTK,
      INCONSISTENCY = Something that fixates or disperses one’s attention.

      So any inconsistency (non-optimum attention) is a target for “auditing” in KHTK..

      • singanddanceall

        damn right it’s interesting Vinaire.

        Maybe “attention” is the wrong word in hubbards statement.

        Don’t know the correct word.

        But I do know Hubbard sure as hell fixed our attention onto and only scientology and his lectures & HCO PL’s & HCOB’s. That is quite evident with KSW and his course room known as a academy. We only studied Hubbardology. And we were not allowed to compare notes between ourselves nor with “other practices”. LOL at myself.

        Anybody notice KSW, PTS/SP tech, and other such mind keeping attention fixed on source, came out about the same time?

        And refined as time marched on?

        • Yes, Hubbard was the biggest squirrel.
          .

          • singanddanceall

            no,

            you are missing my point.

            Hubbard said:

            “Attention is aberrated by becoming unfixed and sweeping at random or becoming too fixed without sweeping.” ~ L. Ron Hubbard”

            My point from what hubbard said is this: “becoming too fixed without sweeping”.

            this word phrase by Hubbard is hypnosis, to hypnotize somebody is to fix attention. Read up on it, consider examining “suggestible states”. What did Hubbard do, but fix attention via KSW and later HCOPL’s & HCOB’s & Standard Tech. Pure suggestion & fixed attention. Consider “what is a course room” in scientology but fixed attention.

            remember dianetics is based upon hypnosis. You, vinaire, of all people should know this? As you have studied & done Idenics.

            One has to consider the data with which Hubbard knew during his upbringing & education at George Washington University, which he learned Aristotle Rhetoric from his Dean Wilbur. Look up his books.

            One has to consider these things to understand Hubbard.

            Look up Dean Wilbur & Hubbards letter to him.

            If you, vinaire, do not understand Rhetoric, then you do not understand Hubbard and his so called axioms of scientology.

            Scientology = much ado about nothing. Makes good money, though.

            chuckle.

            • Well, I was looking at the fact that apart from what you say about Hubbard, there are situations in life that cause fixation and dispersal of attention. By the fact of this non-optimum attention one can trace it to what is causing it. That, to me, is the subject of inconsistency.

              The issue you are bringing up is how Hubbard deliberately attempt to fix people’s attention. There is no question that Hubbard prevented any discussion of his subject, and any comparison of his subject to other subjects by coining the word squirrel (similar to heretic in Christianity). This was aberrative for sure. It prevented a person to question what was presented to him, and to think for himself.

              Word Clearing on was used to enforce this. I remember a friend of mine, who also tutored math, got stuck on the following sentence in KSW1,

              “By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology.”

              Here the word “percentages” is used incorrectly. The correct word should have been “ratio” because Hubbard provided numbers. My friend pointed out this error in a Scientology course room, and this started a trip to the word clerarer, and then to Qual, and then to ethics and then out of Scientology being declared suppressive, because Hubbard could not have been wrong.

              Original Dianetics was very evaluative like Psychoanalysis. Later, OT levels were evaluative in the same manner. They fixed attention and forced thinking in a certain way. But objectives, life repair, and other lower processes allowed a person to look for himself. That was good, but, unfortunately, that was used as a bait.

              So, I understand what you are saying. But I am using a certain observation of Hubbard in a different manner to get something positively useful out of it.

              double chuckle

              • Vin: “Here the word “percentages” is used incorrectly. The correct word should have been ‘ratio’ because Hubbard provided numbers.”

                Maybe you had and still have some missing definitions of ‘percentage’. I always made sure my students who had trouble with that line were looking in a big enough dictionary to have a variety of choices, such as are given in Merriam-Webster:
                —————————————-
                Full Definition of PERCENTAGE
                1a : a part of a whole expressed in hundredths [a high percentage of students attended]
                b : the result obtained by multiplying a number by a percent [the percentage equals the rate times the base]
                2a : a share of winnings or profits
                b : advantage, profit [no percentage in going around looking like an old sack of laundry — Wallace Stegner]
                3: an indeterminate part : proportion
                4a : probability
                b : favorable odds
                ——————————————-

                quadruple chuckle🙂
                —————————————-

                • So which definition applies here?

                  • I personally go for PROBABILITY, defined as follows in Merriam-Webster:

                    (1) : the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes (2) : the chance that a given event will occur

                    “By actual record the PROBABILITIES are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology.”

              • singanddanceall

                thank you!

  33. Somewhere in the comment Vinaire said … as if in passing …

    Marty’s blog is becoming an online sangha.

    I’ve been thinking about this and indeed it is. We are a group of people who are gathered here in space … something has brought us together and the common denominator is our experience in, around, with, or out or near scientology …

    But always with the intention of the person who has gathered this thinly joined group of beings with the aspiration:

    Moving on Up.

    I’ve not found another place anywhere including many various buddhist centers either the highly “religious” ones or the more “mindful” oriented ones who shares OUR common denominator … LRH

    And thus when Marty says:

    “Any mind yet somewhat intact after years of adhering to scientology sci-fi mythology as cold, hard reality, still has the potential for seeing through the self-limiting constructs it has been persuaded to abide. ”

    Many of us can say — oh boy — you can nailed it. And oh boy – I’m so happy to be alive.

    Thanks Vinaire. Got me thinking. Thanks Marty for having a big living room.

    Windhorse

  34. Piercing the Middle Way Between Science and Religion: Sam Harris’ first chapter is up on his website in both text and audio.

    And it is awesome.

    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one

    Alanzo

    • Alanzo,
      Pretty cool read. Thanks

      • It turned out to be much more of a pitch for Buddhism than I expected. There’s even a section in there on Scientology!

        Vinaire will be pleased to see Sam’s argument for Vedic Supremacy.

        As a fellow Vedic Supremist, Vinaire has been trying to articulate Sam’s argument for as long as I’ve known him.

        Looks like it took a Westerner to finally nail it, Vinaire.

        Maybe you can cut and paste some of his points on to your website so you and your Vedic Hordes can finally conquer the western world.

        Admit it: This has been your covert goal this whole time. You’ve been sent here by your Vedic Masters to undermine The West and usurp The Glory for India.

        Alanzo (:>

    • From the link provided by Alanzo:

      Despite the imponderables in her philosophy, Blavatsky was among the first people to announce in Western circles that there was such a thing as the “wisdom of the East.” This wisdom began to trickle westward once Swami Vivekananda introduced the teachings of Vedanta at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. Again, Buddhism lagged behind: A few Western monks living on the island of Sri Lanka were beginning to translate the Pali Canon, which remains the most authoritative record of the teachings of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama. However, the practice of Buddhist meditation wouldn’t actually be taught in the West for another half century.

      Let me now say that like masses of ignorant Scientologists in the Church of Scientology, there are masses of ignorant Hindus in India. Ignorance is not something copyrighted in Scientology only. It is universal as made very popular during the Dark Ages.

      True Hinduism can be found among educated Hindus though, who are open to knowledge anywhere.
      .

  35. Crashing Upwards

    Effect and cause are written about by Harold Percival in “Thinking and Destiny. Chapter II, pages 28-29″ is one passage where he touches on it;

    ” Every thing existing on the physical plane is an exteriorization of a thought, which must be balanced through the one who issued the thought, and in accordance with that one’s responsibility, at the conjunction of time, condition and place.
    This law of thought is destiny. It has aspects which have been expressed by such terms as kismet, nemesis, karma, fate, fortune, foreordination, predestination, Providence, the Will of God, the law of cause and effect, the law of causation, retribution, punishment and reward, hell and heaven. The law of thought includes all that is in these terms, but it means more than all of them, it means, essentially, that thinking is the basic factor in shaping human destiny.
    The law of thought is present everywhere; and is the law to which all other human laws are subservient. There is no deviation from, no exception to, this universal law of thought. It adjusts the mutually interdependent thoughts and plans and acts of the billions of men and women who have died and lived and who will continue to live and die on this earth. Happenings beyond number, some apparently accounted for, some apparently inexplicable, are marshaled to fit into the limiting framework of time and place and causation, facts innumerable, near and far, apposite and contradictory, related and unrelated, are worked into one whole harmonious pattern. It is only by the operation of this law that people exist together on the earth. Not only physical acts and their results are thus ordered; the invisible world in which thoughts originate is likewise adjusted. All this adjustment and universal harmony is brought about by the action of universal forces operating under this law.”

    I am sure there are a few readers of this blog who would now ask about these universal forces. The book which is online is free and the author does explain it all. Quite interesting.

  36. Isn’t it possible ‘I’ can’t be unless I am ‘we’?

    From the following link: http://www.zengardner.com/ubuntu/

    “Africans have a thing called ubuntu. It is about the essence of being human, it is part of the gift that Africa will give the world. It embraces hospitality, caring about others, being willing to go the extra mile for the sake of another. We believe that a person is a person through other persons, that my humanity is caught up, bound up, inextricably, with yours. When I dehumanize you, I inexorably dehumanize myself. The solitary human being is a contradiction in terms. Therefore you seek to work for the common good because your humanity comes into its own in community, in belonging.” — Archbishop Desmond Tutu

    NOTE: Ubuntu (oo-boon-too, n.) means, “I am because we are.” Ubuntu is a Zulu or Xhosa word, and a traditional African concept. It’s a term for humaneness, for caring, sharing and being in harmony with all of creation.

    • I should add though that that viewpoint, philosophy fails in one respect.

      Namely, how does the individual and or “We” deal with the obvious and confirmed ‘Sociopath’ as Martha Stout and some others describe?

      Isn’t that what ‘we’ as humans have faced since time immemorial?

      An acute minority, Sociopaths…..

      Are there degrees of this syndrome? Thus, isn’t it possible that LRH was dramatizing this to a degree?

    • Well, Tutu is quoted as saying “Therefore you seek to work for the COMMON good…….” So we get into th e area of ‘ethical philosophy’, which of course has never resolved how to determine what is “the common good”, although many attempts have been made through the ages…..
      So I guess we need to deal sufficiently with proven sociopaths in ways that are the most clearly ‘for the common good’. That has proven to be a slippery slope many times. Uncountable times, to my view.

  37. In my opinion, Hubbard’s description of infinity-valued logic is more inclusive of different realities and offers more potential for predicting realities than 1, 2, 3, and 4 valued logic. This frame of reverence seems to allow for more degrees of “certainty” as to what is “true” and what is “not true”, always leaves open the possibility of further observation, and allows more tolerance for truth existing in different points of view.
    This is not to say that very many Scientologists actually practice infinity-valued logic, including in many, many cases, LRH in his own writings.

    • LRH himself did not follow the infinity-valued logic. THETA-MEST theory is a glaring example of that.

      .

      • What are the relative dates when he originated he two ideas? I always thought the “theta-MEST theory” was avowedly a “theory” (duh, says so in its name). What succeeded it in his thinking? If anything…..

        • Dates are pretty close to each other. I think there are two LRHs writing here – one under the influence of drugs and the other not.

        • In *Scientology 8-80* he stated that there is “a gradient scale of beingness, from the zero-infinity of theta to the solidity of matter.”

          • And then he said Theta produces MEST and MEST entraps theta.

            This is binary logic and not infinity logic.

            • What is the definition of “binary logic” that you are using?

              • I don’t see the above two statements as mutually exclusive, if that’s what you’re implying.

                • If THETA produces MEST then does THETA exist before it produces MEST? What do you say?

                  • If THETA and MEST are produced simultaneously then one can also say that MEST produces THETA.

                    • That does not logically follow. It is a common fallacy. If they are said to be produced ‘simultaneously’, then neither necessarily produces the other. They could both be the result of a third factor.

                    • So, back to the subject, Is LRH consistent in his Theta-MEST theory? Is is using binary logic or infinity logic?

                    • I’m sure he went into volumnious detail about it in lectures from that period, which I haven’t listened to. If it matters to you, you might listen to them yourself, instead of guessing and speculating. maildi did post one ref in which he was talking about Theta and MEST as an infinity-valued continnum. Let me know what you discover about what he really thought and had to say about it..

                    • Basically, you are just assuming at this moment and you don’t really have an argument to make.

                      Mindfulness # 2 Vlakov, mindfulness #2.🙂

                    • You don’t either, have an “argument to make”.

                    • A person who is source-centric cannot be trusted in his evaluation.

                    • Your lack of trust is ultimately your own problem, not the problem of others. It is not up to others to prove their ‘trustworthiness’ to you. Your distrust coud be a fixed idea.
                      Perhaps look at the source or origin of your distrust? `

                    • Valkov, you don’t really need all those voluminous details to note LRH’s binary assertions that THETA produces MEST and MEST traps Theta. There are no infinite gradients compatible with these assertions.

                  • Excuse me if i butt in all of a sudden, here, Vinaire.
                    Hubbard, in his Theta-MEST Theory, does not say the Theta produces MEST.
                    In that particular theory he says that Theta collides with MEST and then detaches and then collides again and again, each time gaining more experience. This is the gist of the theory.
                    He does say that Theta, as a static, has the ability or potentiality to create MEST in other writings.
                    Remember my definition of consciousness that I wrote in our exchange above?
                    Think of theta as a “vast field of energy”, which has the potentiality for perception, recognition, computation and thought. It should make it easier to assimilate.

                    • From Scn 8-8008 (THETA-MEST THEORY):

                      “It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.” ~ L. Ron Hubbard

              • Same as the usual definition. What is your definition?

        • Valkov,

          You won’t get past any of these dichotomies until you study the tetralemma (4 value logic) per Marty’s recommendation.

          All you are going to do is wander around mentally as a ping-pong forever, as fundamental reality cannot be approached with the normal logical approach.

          • Thanks Conan. I’ve only been saying that for the past 4-5 years here, on Geir’s blog, etc. That doesn’t mean I don’t have hangovers of dichotomous thinking, but seriously I was posting about the tetra lemma on Geir’s blog 4 years ago.
            So if you spot something in a post of mine that is inconsistent with that, address it specifically please. I derive no benefit from vague posts like yours is.

            • Valkov,

              My communication was a help flow to you, for the mental wanderings you were posting above:

              “What are the relative dates when he originated he two ideas? I always thought the “theta-MEST theory” was avowedly a “theory” (duh, says so in its name). What succeeded it in his thinking? If anything…..”

              I’m not interested in pointing out your thinking “inconsistencies” or the lack of them.

              I’m interested in getting people to move up from the mental hangover Hubbard put them in.

              • Thanks Conan. Yes, sometimes I post my ‘musings’ and rhetorical questions. That is OK with me. Admittedly, it is unnecessary and doesn’t really contribute to any incisive discussion, but sometimes it helps me get my focus together.

        • That does not provide an argument by any means.

          • The Theta-MEST Theory postulates that Life is separate from MEST. They are not the same, and Life is not made up of the Material. This is different from multi-valued logic. The theory is that theta can become more MEST-like as it goes downscale, but in no event will Theta ever fully become matter, energy, space, or time. They are two different things.

            • So, there is no gradient between Theta and Mest? What makes you say life is not made up of material? How do you define life?

              • [Sorry Marty – my last reply was a false click.]
                Life is not made up of the material, in my view. To me “life” is the spiritual essence, the spark of the divine, the words “I AM”. I view the spirit as being independent of the body, and the material. Intertwined, yes, affected by, yes, impacted and limited by, yes, but still separate from the material.

                I could be wrong, but I believe the alternative is that I am a rock that speaks, and I don’t believe that.

            • Grasshopper, where are you getting your ideas from? I thought Hubbard said that life is an interplay of Theta and MEST. So, life would consist of both Theta and MEST.

              • Vin, you are using an incorrect (inappropriate, I should say) definition of “life.” I believe the way Grasshopper used it is the same definition as in Axiom 1 – “Life is basically a static” (which you have so much disagreement with as well, interestingly). The appropriate definition tells you that “life” IS theta, and theta is “life”. Context is what it’s all about.

                In the definitions below you’ll see the various concepts.

                LIFE, 1. (understanding), when we say “Life” we mean understanding, and when we say “understanding” we mean affinity, reality and communication. To understand all would be to live at the highest level of potential action and ability. Because life is understanding it attempts to understand. When it faces the incomprehensible it feels balked and baffled. (Dn 55 .!, p. 36) 2 . a fundamental axiom of Dn is that life is formed by theta compounding with mest to make a living organism. Life is theta plus mest. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 3) 3 . a static, which yet has the power of controlling, animating, mobilizing, organizing and destroying matter, energy and space, and possibly even time. (HFP, p. 24) 4 . a thought or mind or beingness that conceives there are forms, masses, spaces, and difficulties. (HPCA-64, 5608C–) 5 . that which is posing and solving problems. (UPC 11) 6 . Life is a game consisting of freedom, barriers and purposes. (Scn 0-8, p. 119)

              • The Dianetic Axioms define “Life” as Lamda, which is the mix of Theta and MEST which is a life form. So, yes, you can say “Life” is an interplay between Theta and MEST. However, I believe (and have experienced) that the Theta _being_ – i.e., each of us – is fully and completely separate from MEST.
                If you recall, at death (according to the Theta/MEST theory) theta retreats from the MEST body, to take its learnings, and move on to the next iteration (i.e. life). I find this an interesting way to view evolution, by the way. So, theta is separate from MEST.

                I can see how you are defining “Life” as animated physical beings. I get that, but that’s not what I am talking about. I am talking about Theta – Life Force, Elan Vital, “the spark of divine fire.”

            • Are you saying that THETA-MEST theory is using binary logic because it is postulating that Life is separate from MEST?

              • Why I said Apples and Oranges is because you stated “LRH himself did not follow the infinity-valued logic. THETA-MEST theory is a glaring example of that.” Theta/MEST has nothing to do with logic, binary, multivalued, or otherwise.

            • Got it.
              However they are still viewed by most people as dichotomies, out of Scientology they will be named Spiritual/Physical. And there is all kind of hang-ups that go along with that misperceptions.Particularly religions tend to trap people with those fabrications.
              Of course there is always an understanding that transcend the misperceptions.

              • I don’t view Spiritual/Physical as a dichotomy. I can see, however, “Spiritual/Not Spiritual” as a dichotomy. and “Material”/”Not material” as another one.

                To me, there is a question of spirituality. Either we are, or are not spiritual in nature. Either consciousness is, or is not, purely a physical function. The working view of Neuroscience and indeed most sciences is that consciousness is a result of brain function only, and is completely encapsulated by the material events in the brain and body. The person’s personality, his ability to read, think, perceive, enjoy, reject, play – all of that, are the result of physical processes and only physical processes in the body. Furthermore, this is all supposed to have come about due to the mechanical process of natural selection, starting about 3.5-4 billion years ago. There is no God, no Divine design, no spiritual external force. Only the aggregate process of lots and lots of cells (ten _trlllion_ in the human body!!!) collectively working together to produce the intellectual stylings of thee and me.

                That is either true, or it is not. Call jt proposition MEST, or Prop-MEST. Either we are, or we are not, purely the result of physical processes. Prop-MEST is either true, or false. It can ONLY be one or the other. If we are _mostly_ physical, with a sprinkling of spiritual, then Prop-MEST is false.

                If you look at this as a Tetralemma: 1. Prop-MEST cannot be both true and false. It is one or the other. 2. Since we exist – consciousness does exist, and we are here – Prop-MEST and Not Prop-MEST cannot both be false. This is the classic “given” statement. Given that humans exist and are conscious, and have an awareness of being conscious, then: Consciousness is purely the result of physical processes – Prop-MEST. True, or false? In this context, it’s not true AND false. Or both false. That leaves 3. Prop-MEST is true, or 4. Prop-MEST is false.

                Infinity-valued logic plays in areas of judgement or degrees. You can view the weather as HOT or COLD, but you can also have mostly hot, and mostly cold. You can view a financial decision as RISKY or NOT RISKY or you can view it is mostly risky, or mostly safe.

                Logic is a toolbox – use the method that will yield the best result, or at least the best approximation.

                • Grasshopper,

                  You will need to read the book “The End of Suffering” to get the complete understanding of the Tetralemma.

                  It is a working model that approximates the PARADOX of life, as viewed by ancient mystics and now Quantum physics.

                  While you and I might know all about the Static, that however is not how Hubbard and others before him spun their religious mythology on unsuspecting marks.

                  Hard as I tried while I was in Scientology the “there is no spoon” gnosis was not around to be found In every day practice.

                  What I actually found was the usual religious dichotomies masquerading as pseudo-scientific space opera certainties.

                  You don’t see Spiritual/Physical as dichotomies. Try again:

                  How is the Static “damaged” by so called wholetrack incidents?

                  How is the Static “caused/effected” into being by long ago and distant events, if there is not such a thing as Time & Space per your own observation?

                  How is Incident One possible, or anything else that exists for that matter, if per your own observation there is nothing there?

                  How is one “condemned” and/or “saved” by causes/effects that per your own observations are just an illusion?

                  If there is no spiritual/physical dichotomies in Scientology, why Ron-The Commodore run his loyal officer corps, purportedly attempting to salvage this sector of the universe from the “non-existent, spiritual Xenu cataclysm”?

                  Is not that simple, isn’t?

                  • You’ve answered your own question: At the highest level, a being is not affected by anything unless he agrees to be. Of course, we are all affected by life on Earth. But we shouldn’t be, really – at least not adversely affected. So the question is: Why are we?

                    • Grasshopper,
                      Good. You can answer your own question.
                      My questions to you were to point at Hubbard’s bamboozle with Scientology, and why what Marty is doing here would not deter you or anybody else from auditing, to the contrary it will improve it.
                      Good chatting with you

                • LRH said about THETA-MEST theory in Scn 8-8008: “Scientology is essentially a study of statics and kinetics. If anything, it is more exact than what are called the physical sciences, for it is dealing with a theoretical static and a theoretical kinetic which are at the opposite ends of a spectrum of all motion.”

                  Grashopper, do you agree or disagree with the above?

                  >

                  • In context I do. In the same chapter, LRH wrote “It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.” Theta is not a kinetic (to use Ron’s word).

        • Grasshopper,

          Let me guess, you are referring to Hubbard’s GPM?

          • “Who or what would opposed an Apple?” That is an interesting thought. Could be an orange. Oranges don’t like cold weather. Apples need cold weather. Conflict!

            • Grasshopper,

              I understand. I posted my reply to you above (it seems misplaced).

              It is just how the dichotomies are perceived by most people as external and in conflict with each other, when in reality they are being fabricated and put in place as opposites only by their mind’s confusion.

  38. Cause and effect in the physical universe are simple to explain.
    Cause = energy source. Effect = energy receive.
    Energy is difference in speed. Something A has speed X and Something B has speed Y. Speed X is not equal to Y.
    Effect is caused by Something A with speed X (faster than Y) encounters something B with speed Y. Thus the phenomenon of energy can be observed.
    As cause depends only on point of view cause can be assigned to the faster moving something or to the slower moving something.
    The sentence “Cause = energy source…” is also wrong. As Cause and Effect points are emanating and receiving energy at the same time.

    As we can see now the physical universe does not know the difference between cause and effect.
    We observe collision of fast or big something with slow or small something and see that the course of the slow or small something is changing more. Thus we say fast or big is cause. Therefore fast or big is win. But the small or slow side can also consider it as win as the course of the big or fast something had changed too.
    Lose is when A and B are equal. Therefore we have as urge to be different.

    • You are right in that “Cause” and “Effect” do not denote things. They denote relative relationships among things.

      So the same particle can be cause in one scenario and en effect in another scenario.

      .

  39. Marty, after two decades of believing every lie Hubbard told us as gospel and unquestioningly, I’m ashamed to say, I’m in a bit of limbo. I need to undo some stuff.

    I’m so please to have these two books are recommended by you and will get them very shortly.

    What a hoax Scientology turned out to be; and Hubbard a scroundel, criminal and pathological liar.. Yes, there is some stuff I can still use and I do but there is so much that is balderdash that I’m somewhat bitter.

    I’ll get over it.

  40. Am going to give a further plug to the book Marty suggested:

    The End of Suffering by Russell Targ and J.J. Hurtak

    I have been studying buddhist logic for over 7 years rather intensively. And scholars from various schools of buddhism have written tomes. The kind you could (and should) use as door stop for a huge mahogany door.

    This little recommended book has helped me pry open those concepts better than anyone AND I can use the information. I have about 1/4 of the book read.

    This book — The End of Suffering does a remarkable job at showing the interested reader about 4 valued logic … etc

    AND frankly unless you have read it or at least had the curiosity to TRY it — the endless “I don’t think so” with hands akimbo is just

    YAWN

    Windhorse

  41. Have you ever just kicked a can ?

    • This is one of the best history lessons on the Church of Scientology I have ever seen. He addresses long-standing mysteries and unconnected dots.

      Chris Shelton is becoming a freaking treasure in the history of Scientology watching.

      His data is great for the burgeoning army of legal practices who are looking to feed their families on the remains of the Church of Scientology.

      Alanzo

    • CD, did you get WHY it was that LRH, was so mad? It was because auditors were grossly misapplying tech and thus messing up many pc’s. He felt strongly about that and wanted to make sure the auditors got corrected on what they were goofing up so badly.

      • Did he ever think about the weakness of his system?

        • Of course. That’s why there were so many changes along the way — which is a point of harsh criticism by many. To use a very old cliché, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.

          • Then why didn’t he make his earlier theories obsolete? He emphatically kept them in place through the Technical Degrades policy. You argument is contradictory to the facts on the ground..

            • Technical Degrades is dated 1970. That is after the Class VIII course was issues, defing ‘standard tech’. Hubbard made it clear that everyhting before that, including the SHSBC, was the “research track”.
              So what does “Technical Degrades” actually apply to?

              • Valkov, I am not clear how you are separating Standard Tech from the research track. Did LRH come up with his final theory culminating from all his research? What was it? Did he issue it?

            • I’m not sure what you mean by “kept them [his earlier theories] in place.” Here are the relevant parts of HCO PL “Technical Degrades” (caps emphasis is mine):
              ————————————
              1. Abbreviating an official course in Dianetics and Scientology SO AS TO LOSE THE FULL THEORY, processes and effectiveness of the subjects.

              2. Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labeling any material “background” or “not used now” or “old” or any similar action WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE STUDENT NOT KNOWING, USING AND APPLYING THE DATA IN WHICH HE IS BEING TRAINED.
              ————————————-

              Note: that last clause (the one in caps) is what’s called a restrictive clause. Perhaps that’s a grammatical MU for you. Better check it out.

              • Let me put the same question to you that I put to Valkov, which is the crux of this argument.

                I am not clear how you are separating Standard Tech from the research track. Did LRH come up with his final theory culminating from all his research? What was it? Did he issue it?

              • Marildi, your argument doesn’t tell me that LRH made his earlier theories obsolete. They were still being sold to the public as if they were still valid.

          • He’s JUST damned marildi.. You have got to read more about this madman.

            It always amazes me how many critics are more informed about the history of Hubbard and Scientology than Scientologists.

            Hubbard played you all like a violin and he’s still playing you.

            • Didn’t you just attack someone else for being rude and dismissive?

              “This is what I was referring to..It was rude and dismissive.”

              Usually when you find fault with others, it is assumed you are above the same action.

              Reason is a double edged sword. Take note. Try not to cut yourself.

              • ” Usually when you find fault with others, it is assumed you are above the same action.”
                ………………..
                Oh foolish of you to assume anything about me.

                “Try not to cut yourself. ” I always carry extra band- aids Thank you

                You’ve posted 2 comments directly at me.. Interesting. Not feeling the love..hahaha

                • “Oh foolish of you to assume anything about me.”

                  Here you go, being rude and dismissive again. I did not assume anything, I read what you wrote. I tried to point out something that I thought might come in handy someday.

                  I thought it was interesting when you first directed your comment directly at me also.

                  It was you that included me as a blanket victim when you wrote,” Hubbard played you all like a violin and he’s still playing you.” I am part of “you all”.

                  I’ve been played before, but not by Hubbard and not by you either.

                  • Or did you think by declaring a large percentage of the population contributing here, “blind played suckers” , and invalidating some or any part of their life, or work to improve themselves, or their world, “feeling the love”?

                    I don’t think you were feeling any love when you hit everyone with that item, and I don’t think I have lost anything by pointing it out to you.

                  • I understand why people join Scn. Good People. People that wanted to make a difference in the world. I remember back in the 60s during the Viet Nam war and so much unrest. Good People were seekers. Different religions , different philosophies .

                    Scientology, Children of God..Moonies all were meant to enlighten spiritual growth. I understand. Scientology became the ” Leader of the Pack” while others faded away.

                    Then second generations.. those who were raised in Scientology. That is all they knew.

                    and then something went terribly wrong. The good people became brain washed. They thought they were in the Scientology.. The Church of Scientology, but they were in a cult. A dangerous cult.

                    There has been blood shed. There has been psychotic breaks and suicide because of mind control. Good people became deeply entrenched in the cult.

                    I apologize if my words offended you. That was not my intention. I do get frustrated by those still putting Hubbard on a pedestal.

                    Marty is now allowing critics. I have felt the pain of disconnection. I have read too many horror stories to not have a voice.

                    As Dr. Martin Luther King once said, ” There comes a time when silence is betrayal. ” I will continue my fight.

                  • The Oracle | August 31, 2014 at 3:59 am |

                    Don’t get me wrong. I see the greatest potential in you. I really do. You are going places, I can assure you.
                    ………………………………………………………………………

                    OK I give.. Where am I going?

        • I doubt it. Not if he sent an auditor trained on the Apollo to be the C/O India who still didn’t get it that function monitors structure.

    • The description of this particular YouTube item says:

      “A fair-use excerpt from the Class VIII Auditor lecture series (Tape 11) to demonstrate the thesis that L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Scientology cult and domestic terrorist group, was an angry and disturbed man.”

      HA HA HA HA! You have GOT to be kidding me.

      If you have ever been in a blown Listing and Nulling session, you will understand this excerpt. It is very upsetting when L&N is screwed up.

    • CD, This video is a joke.
      I am not a scientology supporter any longer but I also do not appreciate opposition or criticism that is made or given without logic.
      This video is illogical. It tries to make Hubbard look crazy when, in fact, he ends up coming across as perfectly normally human. If one were to understand actually what he is talking about, one would be maddeningly pissed off, too. I hope the guy or girl who made this video never goes through the experience of having someone botch Listing and Nulling on him or her. I hope this person never goes through someone botching assessing a prepared list on him or her and leaving him or her with all kinds of upsets unresolved.
      I have had both and life was horrible — the emotional strain wan nearly impossible to bear.
      I have also been in the position where both actions had been done correctly and I have never felt good as I did then. Some of the most incredible spiritual experiences I have gone through in my young life stemmed from these two actions being done as Hubbard had intended.
      So, whoever made this video obviously does not know what Hubbard is talking about and to mock him in this manner — well, I find that the lowest form of criticism and immaturity.
      I am all for constructive criticism that points out real problems and opens the door for a discussion on these matters.
      I am no longer under the illusion that both Hubbard and scientology hold all the answers to life. However, due to personal experiences, I do not level my criticism lightly — I do not “make fun” for the sake of making fun.
      I want you to know that posting this type of “look at how Hubbard is crazy” video does not sit well with me. You are free to continue but I personally do not approve.
      I just thought I should tell you.

      • My criticism (from personal experience) is as follows:

        (1) Listing & Nulling is a very dangerous process especially with a crude device like e-meter. There is no poka-yoke (check this term in Wikipedia).

        (2) Assessment with Mindfulness of possible items in response to a question is much safer.

        (3) As source, LRH is at fault for not providing a safe process.

        .

        • Vin, although I do not totally agree, I understand what you are saying.
          However, my main thought about the above was the quality of the criticism being leveled.
          I appreciate yours — at least it’s not the “hihihi, Hubbard’s so crazy” kind.
          When people are out of valid arguments, they resort to name-calling.

  42. REAL MESSENGER GIRLS:

    • I do not want you to be disconcerned about the girls perse. I want you to think abour L Ron Hubbards Mind to have thought this up to be okay.

      • The girls in my high school and at the mall were dressed skimpier than that in the ’70s. Of course, nowadays, they are all locked down into those idiotic SO outfits.

        • What about the parents ?

          • They were at swinger’s retreats. New Jersey in the ’70s. Gotta love it.

            • “He could be capable of incredible cruelty. On the ship there was
              an old man on the Royal Scotman who he made push a peanut round the
              decks with his nose. He had to get down on his hands and knees, he
              had to go round the deck, quite a long distance in a race with one
              or two others also in trouble. The first one back got let off and
              the last one got a double penalty. It was really tough on this old
              guy, Charlie Reisdorf. The surface of the deck was very rough wood,
              prone to splinter, so after pushing peanuts with their noses, they
              all had raw, bleeding noses, leaving a trail of blood behind them.
              I not only saw it but the entire crew of the ship was mustered – a
              mandatory attendance – we were required to watch this punishment,
              to make an example of it for the rest of us. Reisdorf was in his
              late 50s probably. His two daughters were messengers, they were 11
              or 12 at time and his wife was there also. It was hard to say which
              was worse to watch: this old guy with a bleeding nose or his wife
              and kids sobbing and crying at being forced to watch this. Hubbard
              was standing there calling the shots, yelling, ‘Faster, Faster!’.
              It was indignity, degradation and breaking a person’s will, and
              making people watch. It was disgusting.”

              • This has always sickened me Cat..In fact I knew what was coming as I read it. And people wonder why critics can’t keep quiet about this evil man.

                I continue to be outraged.

                • “God was feeling sardonic the day He created the Universe. So it’s rather up to at least one man every few centuries to pop up and come just as close to making him swallow his laughter as possible.”

                  ―L. Ron Hubbard

  43. Hi Marty, I don’t have time to comment I depth, but I really like this post. It resonates strongly with the theme of a book I am re-reading right now, one that toys with themes of relativity, perception, and the illusion of cause and effect, to a delightful end — the title is The Complete Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

    It is a popular series of novels, but I only read them for the first time a couple of years ago. Anyone who has read my blog knows I look for meaning in what most folks see as pop culture, and I find it a fruitful exploration. These books, so lighthearted and absurd on the surface, are sprinkled with delightful gems of insight into a POV that transcends time and space. But the playfulness allows the philosophical exploration to be really fluid and fun. For anyone who has never read them, or perhaps it’s been a long while, I highly recommend the books as uplifting, inspiring fiction, and perhaps another angle of approach on what I think Marty is pointing at in this post.

    Thanks for more excellent food for thought, Marty!

  44. I do not follow all aspects as given here in this thread .. I myself heard at first time from LRH about the cycle of action (not really true – who knows not about Start – Change – Stop) .. but it is Control by LRH .. and by LRH it is also Cause and Effect ..

    I may have a lot misunderstood what LRH said about, because it goes for me this way and that way .. finally I didn’t really know what he intended to say .. and for what benefit it should be ..

    Why I mix Cycle of Action, Control and Cause and Effect. It seems it is part of my soul (myself, me, I) .. but I myself have no real concept what myself or me or I is really .. the only thing I did in my life was looking for that what I can see .. there was never a meaning with connected .. I saw what I saw and it was only connected with like or dislike of it .. so I am basically a real stupid guy .. and surely I am ..

    Once in my youth I sat down and asked me about myself: What you are doing here really. I found that I watch what I am seeing and told others sometimes about my likes or dislikes in a discussion .. but it did not much matter to me was the result was .. surely I gave a lot emotion in it, but this was the game which was played .. why not ..

    For me is Cause and Effect in balance by my nature .. it is both the same, which means the Cause causes an Effect .. and the Effect causes a Cause and so on .. little bit stupid .. but as said above .. I am stupid, because do not grasp the point in it ..

    What? If I throw an atomic bomb down it will surely create an effect for lot of environment and people .. I am surely the Cause of throwing this thing down but are not the Cause of the Effect .. it goes complicated here, but what I mean is that I did a stupid thing for which I took no responsibility in the beginning ..

    I would not throw an atomic bomb down .. but I wanted to show that the idea of Cause and Effect goes a line down before you have Cause and Effect really at hand .. it looks to me more than intention and counter intention .. I work much better with that ..because between of this you have Cause and Effect as a game .. and this is which I wanted to say ..

    Someone in this thread wrote that eternity is given with the concept that you can always make it a little bit larger .. the guy who wrote about his Sunshine Rundown (I think) .. the cause was that he tried to looking bright, and he got a bright space .. but the intention was the cause and he has descriped it as an effect .. but this is mostly happened in Scientology and called as a win .. but it is short time win ..

    As said above in this thread .. an SP can only have powers over you when you have no power yourself .. it is all intention against counter intention .. and it is not Cause and Effect .. that is only a result of playing a game .. and it means you can always create intensions against counter intesions and so on .. but it is still a game .. but you can it really go down to the question to Cause and Effect .. but this is not the real game .. I am surely sure that it is the origin of Cause and Effect ..

    Marty may now go on to speak about intention .. which was once the goal for original OT VII .. now you have New OT VII ..

    Sorry if I said something wrong or stupid .. but I am stupid ..

  45. intension means always intention .. sorry ..

  46. Once in my youth I wrote a book: Why God does not Help. I worked through all religions in all cultures .. and found that everybody is like god. So I wrote it down (never published) .. the consens was surely where was the first god of all gods .. and why he did appear and from where he came

    Who was the first of all thetan? Who was the first creator of the game. It is as like the bible .. god created Adam and Eve .. but from where came god?

    Basically it doesn’t matter why god did invent himself, maybe there were 16 gods at the same time who invented themself .. but why they did that, it was no time and space existend .. we are here out of anything .. but it is surely true that something like that happened once .. out of a total nothing came up a something .. which was the sense of my book .. I asked in my book why a nothing became something .. which was quite a provocation to all readers (but had none) ..

    With Axiom 1 in Scientology it is easy, there were at once thousands of billions and more thetan there .. bumm .. but in my view once in my youth it was not true .. because planet Earth had ones in old times about 1000 thetan on it .. goof thetans .. enjoy the planet ..

    • The very first God came from the assumption that fundamental to all reality is a being.

      >

      • No this doesn’t work .. the fundamental assumption had to come from an assumption which has nothing to do with assumptions .. it is completely free of such ideas .. so on, LRH said never from where a thetan came .. no religion said it .. it is only you are because you are .. not really knowi
        why you are ..

        My reality is that somewhere in the past was builded up a mind who was concious about a nothingness .. however he did it .. but per logic it was done .. and there were more than one who did it ..

        God was only a freak who started it .. out of nix .. once ago in the times where we were not there .. because at this time we were all god ..

        But as said abvoe, it became clear to me that there are about 16 gods who played the same game .. maybe more .. it seems that a building of a god is the same as building of a thetan ..

        If you will have a game you need somebody who create it .. I think the god of all gods looks only what happens .. he himself feels himself as a complete nothing .. but let everybody speculate about him .. which may be his game .. maybe ..

        • If you simply are then what you observe is not separate from you.

          The observer and the observed are the same thing.🙂

        • Friend, I am enjoying your interesting posts.

          • Thank you marildi .. but is all stuff which was never before said .. so it is all withhold per scientology definition .. so I speak out here what was in my mind .. better to say what came into my mind with handling my case as proposed by scientology and his workers (auditor, C/S, ethics officer, Qual and Word Clearer) .. and with all of that I lost my orignial soul, it is in final decision not well what I have here .. I have something experienced which I would not write in my own book .. so I give away my thoughts so that I may come back into my own roots ..

            I mean very carefully said: if you do not can postulate .. you are not on the verge to be an OT .. but see, my power to postulate did ruin with this scientology stuff .. I know very well that scientology decrease OT powers, nobody will ever become an OT on this route ..

            So I speak out about my view why it happens this way .. I am not at the bottom line of it .. I said once to my Qual Sec: It seems to me by your words that one must be OT before he can become an OT in this church ..

            I add this up to a point, where I said: How do you would handle LRH when he comes in as a teenaer? What would you do whern he says that he is the source?

            See what I mean?

            • Hi Friend. I read an article tonight and thought it might interest you, especially the part about the Church and the possible real reasons it became what it did. That part is in the section titled, “Ron’s plans for the Church.” The rest of the article, mainly about Ron himself as an OT, and written by someone who knew him, is very interesting too. Here’s the link: http://www.freezone.org/LRH/bob_ross.htm

          • as a teenager .. okay

          • Yes, I do see what you mean. And I’m very glad you are speaking out and telling what was in your mind then and what is in your mind now.

            Even if Ron was sincerely trying to create a path that anyone could walk and move “upward” as a being, that obviously did not occur for many. And even assuming such a path really was created, then he failed to get it into existence because of his failure to get the staff and public educated and trained well enough to apply it successfully, and also because of the failure to get and keep the organization running in such a way that the path itself, with its potential benefits, would have come about.

            To me, the above considerations are actually the basis of all these discussions, since there are people who fared well and did achieve ‘OT abilities,’ as well as others who were harmed. So I hope you continue to contribute your thoughts, and that it helps you ‘come back to your own roots,’ as you worded it. I feel confident that you will, one way or another.🙂

  47. There has been some discussion on this thread about LOGIC. Logic has to do with how one thinks. The fact is that one thinks not only in terms of certainties, but one also thinks in terms of uncertainties and approximations. Actually, the latter comprises the majority of thinking.

    So, forcing one to think only in terms of TRUE or FALSE is aberrative. A famous example of that is the question, “Do you still beat your wife?” This question assumes things, which are not stated, and whose truth values have not been established.

    There can be things that are neither true nor false because a firm determination of their truth or falsity cannot be made lacking data. Again, there can be things that are true or false depending on the context.

    I never liked symbolic logic for that reason. That logic is binary and it depends on mechanically parsing the logical input. That logic is used for computers, but it is far from being completely logical.

  48. Brian stated in one of his posts that it all begins with the sense of “I”. I objected to it where Marty and few others agreed with it.

    There are two different concepts here. There is awareness. And then there is “awareness of awareness.” The latter is essentially awareness looking at itself. It is a kind of introversion. This is where one starts to think in terms of an “I”.

    This becomes confusing because “I” can also be used as a reference point for something without any sense of introversion. So, there is a relative “I” where no identification exists, and then there is an absolute “I” where introversion and definite identification exists.

    The latter interpretation of “I” comes from the assumption that Being is the basis of reality, whereas the former interpretation is free of such assumption.

    Hubbard of Scientology makes the assumption in Axiom #1 that Being is the basis of reality. This is the same assumption that Abrahamic religions make. The Vedic religions of the East do not make such assumption.

    So the casual use of “I” in relative terms represents simple awareness and not “awareness of awareness.”

    When Brian stated that it all begins with the sense of “I”, he seems to be talking in terms of “awareness of awareness.” I don’t think that it all begins with such introversion.

    There can be simple awareness with no attention on oneself.
    .

    • I think this is a misstatement:
      “There are two different concepts here. There is awareness. And then there is “awareness of awareness.” The latter is essentially awareness looking at itself. It is a kind of introversion.”
      It is actually one locus of awareness looking at the perceptions, views, generated by another locus of awarness.
      A camera is ‘aware’ of its environment. It is a “locus of awareness”. A person monitoring the screens on which the camera’s ‘awareness’ is displayed, is aware of that second awareness, as wel as the room s/he is sitting in. S/he is awar eof his/her own awareness, as wel as the awarnessof the robot camera or whatever.
      That seems emtirely clear to me. It is not “awareness being aware of itself”.

      I t is more than one awareness, with one awareness monitoring another, and being aware of both at the same time.

  49. BRIAN: “Neti Neti means: not this not that. Our true natures are not the roles we play not the objects in the play. We are Spirit, ever free, ever joyous, ever conscious, ever existing- Sat-chit-ananda.”

    Associating “I” with the idea of a free, joyous, conscious spirit is also accompanied by some sense of introversion and identification.

    There seems to be an obsession within each one of us to discover who or what one is. Even after all identifications are discarded, the last identification seems to be with some idea or concept, such as, spirit.

    Imagine, what will happen when even this last identification is also discarded.

    There is no attention on oneself. Now that is freedom.🙂

    .

    • Mornin’ Vin.
      As I explore and search for the sources and reasons for my fixations, I find some interesting things occurring.

      I am losing the need to consider myself in a certain way. I also find that I have less need to not consider myself in a certain way.

      A couple of weeks ago, I commented on the life I had in the town I was raised and the work I had done to help others and the observations I had made etc. That I had simply missed out on some of the human frailties and petty emotions of some others.

      Marty replied “Good for you.” A boldly sarcastic statement that I was bragging on how great things have been and are for me. I looked back over my post and sure enough, that’s exactly how it appeared. I looked back over several of my comments and noticed another identity I have been operating from. Congeniality. Mr. nice guy who wants to tell the world what he has seen, like the guy who posts pictures of his vacation on facebook, so that everyone can see how good a time he had. I considered this a likable identity, so I used it. I avoided unlikable identities.

      Letting an identity operate for you has no value except when, by random chance, it fits the situation. But that is a crap shoot. Not being able to get out of it is definitely an aberration.

      But being able to create any identity for a conscious purpose, at will, now there is something valuable. To be able to operate from any viewpoint, or not, then you have something.

      Is your work taking you in that direction?
      Mark

      • That is excellent Mark.

        My latest work is looking more closely at the consideration of Parmenides of Elea that fundamental to all reality is a Being. The leaves one wondering what is fundamental to a Being.

      • Vin.
        Would you be easily able to give someone a vicious angry verbal beatdown if the situation clearly called for it?
        Would you be able to ask Charles Manson a subtle question which may spark a bit of insight into his own psyche, and do it with real loving ARC.

        Being able to observe without a viewpoint, without filters is a joy and obviously quite valuable. Being able to act at any moment, in any manner, according to choice, is JUST AS VALUABLE.
        Mark

        • There is no single permanent thing that is acting. Action is the result of vectors present at any moment. It may be compared to the Brownian motion.

          • Vinaire.
            Heinlein would be proud. Or was it Asimov who wrote in a story that ALL activity could be predicted if ALL the current information could be gathered and calculated. No creative choice whatsoever. Is this really what you are implying? That ALL my activity is determined by forces in my past and current environment? That is exactly what Brownian Motion implies when related to human interaction.

            Your statement: “Action is the result of vectors present at any moment.” reinforces that viewpoint. I rarely argue directly to any point made on this site, but this is quite a stretch, even for you, Vin.

            Would you like to modify or elaborate on this short statement? Help me.
            Mark

            • Check your assumptions Mark. There is a spiritual element in what I am saying because things appear and disappear.

              Brownian Motion was used as a metaphor.

              • Got it, Checking.

                • The true spiritual element is the unpredictability of the appearance and disappearance of things and associations. The rest is mechanical.

                  The mechanical element is the predictability of things and associations that are in existence.

                  But, like any other dichotomy, “spiritual.and mechanical” form the two ends of the same graduated scale. In other words, these concepts are relative to each other.

        • I am as much part of the scene as anything else. Or, I may consider myself to be the whole scene. It is just shifting the frame of reference. It does not change what is happening.

      • MarkNR: “Marty replied ‘Good for you.’ A boldly sarcastic statement that I was bragging on how great things have been and are for me.”

        If you are saying that it was Marty’s reply that was sarcastic, I didn’t get it that way at all. I thought he meant it sincerely.

        As to the main point of your post, what you wrote here was your usual practical wisdom:

        “But being able to create any identity for a conscious purpose, at will, now there is something valuable. To be able to operate from any viewpoint, or not, then you have something.”

        • Perhaps I should just ask Marty.
          Hey, ding, ding. Was that “Good for you” sarcasm or were you happy for me. Either way, I benefited from it, since you triggered me to do a review.
          Thank you, Marty. But what I really mean down inside is, Thank you, Marty.
          Mark
          PS: I won’t draw this out since it was concerning a political topic, which I mentioned before, doesn’t belong here.

        • Good afternoon, Marildi.
          Thank you for the compliment, but I’m afraid I have a bit of a bone to pick with you.
          Every time you send a comment to me, my head gets a little bit bigger. I have a collection of 22 hats that no longer fit me unless I have them let out. That would cost me over $50 at a local alterations shop. You owe me girl. Of course there are some that see me differently. There is a fine line between getting a swollen head and being a fat head. I lay on you the responsibility of keeping me on the right side of that line.
          Luv ya gal.
          Mark

  50. Hi Marty

    I have been reading and re-reading your latest post over the last few days because at first it seemed to threaten my belief in a personal infinite creator God.

    The idea of “dependent origination” at first appears to leave no place for God but on further inspection I realised it is exactly dependent origination that convinces the creationists of the fact of intelligent design and ultimately the belief in an infinite – personal God.

    The reasoning goes that there are many observable phenomena in the physical universe that could not have arisen unless a particular set of causes and effects were working interdependently, and for this to happen the obvious conclusion is that they are working in accordance to a design.

    From what I understand of Buddhism and Scientology they have a lot in common, both being rooted in UNDERSTANDING. The main difference it seems to me is Buddhism focuses on becoming more and more COMPASSIONATE whereas Scientology focuses on “MAKING THE ABLE MORE ABLE”.

    The fact that Jesus Christ arrived on the scene after The Buddha in no way contradicts the teaching of The Buddha and his emphasis on compassion, but Jesus was taking it into another realm by focusing on LOVE – PERFECT LOVE.

    It seems to me that compassion comes out of UNDERSTANDING whereas LOVE is what we experience when we unite with our Heavenly Father, and that is DIVINE LOVE, which cannot be understood but can be experienced, at which time compassion becomes a natural by-product.

    Going back to the analogy of the “three sticks” quoted, they are INTERDEPENDENT but someone had to set them up and to knock them down.

    Love and ARC
    Pip

  51. There is no attention on oneself. Now that is freedom .. yes sure, but you will always have attention on yourself .. and there is no freedom ..

    • Animals have no attention on themselves because they are not aware of being aware.

      Man is further evolved than animals. He has the capability of being aware of his own awareness. In other words, he can be aware of himself. He can review his actions for errors and correct them.

      But that doesn’t mean that he must always keep attention on himself. he can operate freely without attention on himself.

      • “Animals have no attention on themselves because they are not aware of being aware.”

        You’ve really out done yourself on this one Vinaire.

        Animals have no attention on themselves? I guess you have never seen a cat licking it’s paws? Or a dog chasing it’s tail? Or an animal looking for food because it is HUNGRY? I could go on and on but really………….

        • Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.

        • How does those examples describe their mental state? You seem to be projecting your mental inerpretaions here.

          • I never proposed to describe their mental state. It is obvious to me that the statement you made about animals is false. It is you saying form dictates function. You stating about the awareness of animals. I doubt you have ever interviewed an animal. Yet you publish a finality about the awareness of animal. You wrote: “Animals have no attention on themselves because they are not aware of being aware.” I say this is false information. Prove otherwise.

        • I agree with Oracle.

          I have never understood statements by my fellow human beings like “Animals have no attention on themselves because they are not aware of being aware.”

          I have never thought like this for one second. It has always been so clear to me that any animal has just as rich of an inner life as any human being, and is just as aware of its existence as any one of us.

          To me this is as obvious as breathing, and it always has been.

          Alanzo

          • I agree with Oracle and Alanzo about animals. Some like cats, dogs and some birds (my experience) have a sixth sense, feelings or some intuitive abilities or perceptions. Experience and awareness of this in other species is nice to have, call it what you may.

            • I think most animals are very good at sensing the intentions and emotions of others, meaning the intentions and emotions of humans.

              • Watch this amazing vid about a beautiful and very communicative black leopard:

                • Very nice video Miraldi. I have been able to talk to most animals since I was seven years old. I would think anyone that has solo audited wouldn’t have any problem communicating to animals.

                  • ery nice video Miraldi. I have been able to talk to most animals since I was seven years old. I would think anyone that has solo audited wouldn’t have any problem communicating to animals.

                    Thanks, TO. Very cool that you can talk to animals, and could do so since you were a child. Children lose such abilities because, not being objective, they get invalidated as not real.

                    By “solo audited,” are you talking about NOTs? Its EP was “Cause over life” and I think the definition of “life” (the activity of living) that most people use isn’t what he meant. Rather, it was “life” as in theta beings. And that should extend to animals, maybe plants too.

                    I don’t know why LRH wanted the person to get all beings out of his space, maybe just as the setups (it was actually the pre-req) for the next OT level so that there would be no “interference” from other life sources. But the ability to communicate with “life,” and to that degree not be the unwanted effect of other beings, would have been the actual ability gained.

                    • The few years I spent in West Virginia, and some subsequent summer vacations there, were a real blessing for me in terms of coming into communication with the supernatural. It is a very spiritual area. Everyone was in communication with the animals and everyone talked to ghosts.

                      Hubbard’s write ups on the Nots, I didn’t find all to be true for me. And I didn’t and don’t have an aversion to the presence of other spirits. Especially spirits that have been under my protection, and vice versa.

                      Really, I haven’t found anything weird or unusual in Scientology.

                      I didn’t pay much attention to anything I read that was NOT an eternal truth.

                      Policies on in baskets and so on. That stuff just didn’t interest me. The justice lay out, I didn’t come there for that so I blew it off too. Things that had time expiration on them I just didn’t take in. Stuff about people.

                      I have known for a long time , it is not about today or next year or even next life. It is about someplace I am going to be standing a thousand years from now. And I knew this my whole life, even before Scientology.

                      I look at the reactive mind as a tool rather than a handicap. And a lot of people really don’t think they can survive with out it. It is like trying to snatch a life preserver away from someone who is floating in the middle of the ocean. It was not easy at all for me to let go of it. I felt very vulnerable and fragile and small for quite a while myself when I went clear, and even mocked up some other systems as buffers.

                      I say, if someone isn’t going to enjoy life with out it, let them keep it. It’s just a tool. Nobody wants to into a war zone unarmed. A car is a tool too.
                      So is a weapon. The analytic mind I have found to be a bigger burden than the reactive mind. It is also a tool. I felt much brighter and more intelligent once I unloaded that. The identities are tools too.

                      What was I doing in Scientology? Just sorting out my tool box.

                      The Scientology didn’t cause me to transcend any further into the supernatural than I already was, until I got into the identity clearing and purpose clearing (L12). That was mercy. And that was when I got to the point where I felt the only tool I needed, was my ability to look and know.

                      I think if this L12 had just been made one of the grades, like grade V, people would have had a much happier experience in Scientology.

                      From what I have read it undercut the case to such a degree, the price had to be jacked for the lost income one would get from a P.C..

                      At the end of the day, if you really get what is going on in this auditing, you can just decide not to have identity that has a case. Then what? Who needs Scientology?

                      If you can manage your identity, managing your life is very easy. You wake up, you go out, something upsets you. Then you say to yourself, “Do I want to have anger as part of my identity today?”

                    • martyrathbun09

                      You didn’t happen to mosey by Harper’s Ferry in the summer of 06 did you?

                    • Thanks, TO. Very interesting post.

                      You wrote: “If you can manage your identity, managing your life is very easy. You wake up, you go out, something upsets you. Then you say to yourself, ‘Do I want to have anger as part of my identity today?’”

                      The above is very much like Mark NR was saying in a recent post too.

                      Here’s another line of yours I especially liked:

                      “…I got to the point where I felt the only tool I needed, was my ability to look and know.”

                      Love it when you get on a roll like this, stuff that’s simple but deep. ♥

                    • +++ 🙂 I gotta keep L12 in mind! Sorry Al.

                    • No, but it’s on my bucket list!

                      “The passage of the Patomac through the Blue Ridge is perhaps one of the most stupendous scenes in Nature… worth a voyage across the Atlantic.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1783

                    • martyrathbun09

                      That is as an apt description.

              • I don’t know. Maybe the K9 units aren’t thinking of the treats they will get from the handlers. Maybe some of those dogs have drug track.

                • Oracle, I really do not want to be reading anything about NOTs here, would you please STFU about that OT level shit because its dangerous .

                  • The real reason why the Co$ has gone down is because they could never STFU about it, people who will not STFU end up going down , another example is Bill Ryan of project camelot , he was thrown off that because he would not STFU about it and mark my words this blog will be gone and finished if you and other posters here do not STFU about it . I do not want this blog to go but continue like this and it will , something will happen and it will be gone off the internet .

                  • Jus try NOT to think about XENU.

            • Maybe the seeing eye dogs are just ser facing. Making themselves right and others wrong.

            • deElizabethan, Very true. My cat went nuts and woke me up about 45 seconds before the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles. He was howling and standing on his hind legs and slapping the door knob on the back door of the house. He wanted to get the fuck out of the house. He had never done that. I got out of bed to help him and BOOM!! Earthquake. Shock waves move slowly through the ground. Animals probably think we humans are pretty lame that we can’t sense what they can. I don’t know why scientists are baffled by this. It seems they haven’t been able to design a scientific test to show what happens here. Maybe they should ask a cat for help.

              • Laughter! The animals can feel it coming. I knew the last Earthquake I was in, was coming when I saw two of my dogs digging holes for themselves to go into. “What the hell are you digging big holes in the yard for?” “To lay in when the Earthquake hits.” “When is it going to hit here?” “Roof ly two days from now.” Two days later…….. 5.1 .

                They know about the drought too on the west coast. All of animals here.
                Plenty of D E and R (dog emotion and reaction) with my animals to get off the south west coast.

                The birds have cleared out. No more birds around here. When you go outside and can’t find a bird anywhere, You’ve got to believe it’s time to pack up and get moving.

                I don’t think it is possible to know about future conditions if you are not in communication with the animal kingdom.

          • Now just wait a minute Alanzo. Have you considered the squirrels really don’t have attention on themselves, and they gather and hoard nuts to run a “Can’t Have” on humans?

      • Assuming function is determined by form is a long shot. That the body determines awareness is a long shot. It has been my observation that animals have a highly developed sense of themselves, and perceptions that many humans do not. Dogs for instance, manage to get themselves picked up and bought into families without a single word needed between them and a human to place them in care for a lifetime. Humans have to be born into a family to get that kind pass. Most animals can be dropped on the ground and survive at birth or soon after without any verbal hat turnover. You rarely see and animal passing along false information.

        • Most animals have dignity and pride. And are capable of feeling shame and remorse. No attention on self? Why do animals run or fight? Why do they feel guilt?

          • Amazing vid. Leaves no question that dogs have feelings.

            That lady sure has a lot of dogs! Interesting how some of them were shrinking in obvious shame, while others turned over onto their backs. Wonder what the tone levels were – grouped together on the tone scale are failure, pity, shame and accountable, in that order moving downward.

            • I don’t think the dogs belong to the same person. It is a series of clips put together from different people I think.

              • I thought so too, at first. But I kept hearing the same lady’s voice for quite a few different dogs. And I know that some people do have many dogs. Or cats.

        • Oracle, I think that you are dubbing in quite a bit.

          • I’m not dubbing that you are the Sigmund Fraud of the animal kingdom.

          • vinaire, I got your dub in right here.

            • The above video plays the full list of talking animals videos on youtube.

              WARNING: So far I have wasted over an hour this morning laughing my ass off at these.

              Alanzo

              • I consider an hour spent laughing as time extremely well spent🙂 But where is the link? I want to laugh, too.

                Incidentally, the need to be productive at all times in yet another aspect a former scientologist has to be weaned from.

                • This is also not unique to scientologists. It is possibly a Christian cultural thing, as in th esayings “The Devil finds work for idle hands”, and “Busy hands are happy hands”. That attitude also provides justification for enforcing child labor and lots of “production” by all hands, which is supposedly “the basis for morale”.
                  From that angle, LRH and the Sea Org might be considered quite holy, having made many many people, or at any rate their hands, very happy and kept them out of the Devil’s clutches, giving them no chance to masturbate…..
                  So it seems to me the Sea Org is the expression of some major Western cultural ideals and mores……

                  • marildi