Clear on Objectives?

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Well, Zinji, I'm talking about discharging topics using my Rub & Yawn procedure. Discharge here means yawns mainly, with me anyway. I don't have to uphold anyone's idea of cosmology and other universes and so forth as I neither preach about such nor even have definite ideas about such any more.

Sometimes I run stuff and look at it in different ways and charge either comes off or it doesn't. I don't have any preferences either way with regard to "before time", although I confess I used to think it was "cool" to run stuff before time started. Similarly with "after time", way in the future, although I don't recall even Hubbard saying too much about that one.

My only interest is that some people (not only me) have found the concept sometimes helps to discharge stuff.

If you want to look on it as more imaginative ways to be delusional, it is what I would expect. :)

Paul


Maybe we can just leave it at; 'If one believes in 'charge' and that 'discharging charge' will make him feel better, it's quite likely that it will' :)

Zinj
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Maybe we can just leave it at; 'If one believes in 'charge' and that 'discharging charge' will make him feel better, it's quite likely that it will' :)

Zinj

As you wish. The "discharging" in my procedures is highly visible (yawning etc.). If it's not highly visible to an untrained/unindoctrinated person, in my opinion it's not useful as an indicator. You never did try it out, did you Zinji? :)

Paul
 

Pierrot

Patron with Honors
Since the 'subject' creates his delusion himself, it 'belongs to him' and it actually reinforces the original suggestion when he 'rationalizes' it to skeptics.

Zinj

I'm skeptic here reading you rationalizing, Zinj :confused2:
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
As you wish. The "discharging" in my procedures is highly visible (yawning etc.). If it's not highly visible to an untrained/unindoctrinated person, in my opinion it's not useful as an indicator. You never did try it out, did you Zinji? :)

Paul

However, the Yawner (as opposed to the 'PC') expects 'discharge' or 'relief', and, he himself is the 'measure'. Not denigrating your 'process' Paul, although it might sound like it. I believe firmly in the 'placebo effect', but, also that there may be 'mind/body' connections that go beyond it. But face it, subjective is inherently subjective :)

Zinj
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
However, the Yawner (as opposed to the 'PC') expects 'discharge' or 'relief', and, he himself is the 'measure'. Not denigrating your 'process' Paul, although it might sound like it. I believe firmly in the 'placebo effect', but, also that there may be 'mind/body' connections that go beyond it. But face it, subjective is inherently subjective :)

Zinj

I would expect most people to be sceptical, quite honestly. To a Scientologist, it is heretical, and theoretically impossible. To a non-Scientologist, the whole idea is real weird.

Apart from that, I agree it is subjective. But it's real hard to fool yourself into yawning twenty times in twenty minutes. :)

Paul
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I'm skeptic here reading you rationalizing, Zinj :confused2:

Maybe you're missing 'mass' on it :)

Howz bout an example?

A guy is hypnotized that 'you're a chicken'. He now actually believes it. But, all the hypnotist said was 'you're a chicken', not *how* he became a chicken, or *why* he doesn't look like a chicken or how it is he can talk to people, despite the fact that chickens notoriously don't talk.

So, when asked how he turned into a chicken, he has to come up with his *own* 'whole track' for it. 'Well, actually, I was always a chicken, but, I didn't want anyone to notice, and, now I'm 'out of the coop''.

Or, Why does he talk instead of clucking? 'Most chickens could talk, but, they choose not to, because they're still stuck 'in the coop''.

Or, why he doesn't have feathers? 'About 75 million years ago I was blown up in a volcano using hydrogen bombs and it blew my feathers off''.

See? The trick is that all the 'hypnotist' did was suggest that the 'subject' was a chicken; the rest is what he comes up with to *rationalize* his belief.

The subject has a 'stable datum' around which all his rationalizations are built.

It's one reason I suspect that Ron forbade 'discussing case' or 'the Tech' with others, and even condemned it as 'Verbal Tech' and a crime.

When all the chickens begin clucking their whole tracks together, it could get confusing :)

Zinj
 

Pierrot

Patron with Honors
Maybe you're missing 'mass' on it :)

Howz bout an example?

A guy is hypnotized that 'you're a chicken'. He now actually believes it. But, all the hypnotist said was 'you're a chicken', not *how* he became a chicken, or *why* he doesn't look like a chicken or how it is he can talk to people, despite the fact that chickens notoriously don't talk.

So, when asked how he turned into a chicken, he has to come up with his *own* 'whole track' for it. 'Well, actually, I was always a chicken, but, I didn't want anyone to notice, and, now I'm 'out of the coop''.

Or, Why does he talk instead of clucking? 'Most chickens could talk, but, they choose not to, because they're still stuck 'in the coop''.

Or, why he doesn't have feathers? 'About 75 million years ago I was blown up in a volcano using hydrogen bombs and it blew my feathers off''.

See? The trick is that all the 'hypnotist' did was suggest that the 'subject' was a chicken; the rest is what he comes up with to *rationalize* his belief.

The subject has a 'stable datum' around which all his rationalizations are built.

It's one reason I suspect that Ron forbade 'discussing case' or 'the Tech' with others, and even condemned it as 'Verbal Tech' and a crime.

When all the chickens begin clucking their whole tracks together, it could get confusing :)

Zinj

I have more mass about chicks than about chicken, Zinj, and although I wasn't raised in a farm I would say you really lay an egg in your post.

I get the metaphore - true I've seen this happen but then I've seen it happen in and out of the church. So many people seem asleeeeeep....

Let's get back into this thread - "Clear" and "Objectives". I knew I had no time track, remembered some of my past lives, and knew I'll never lose my awareness of being aware, all this at the age of 6. About the time where kids in general become aware of self as an individual and begin questionning things.

Later on I started looking. Studied tough Maths, then Philosophy, some Psychology, etc etc - and of course Guitar - and when I found Scn and the term Natural Clear, I thought "hey, first time someone did research into 'states' like the one I am". Interesting. Let's see what else did he find about.

So I had my stable data beforehand, none did shake those, not even Hubbard, and through auditing I could finally understand what made others tick. Later on (re-)studying other disciplines, and exchanging with practitionners in other fields.

Actually all those books I've read in the beginning of Scn study, and before any auditing, did create some trouble - what is called Interiorisation/Exteriorisation phenomena - as I had to "shrink" my space attempting to understand it. Anyway...

The 75million yrs ago inc belongs to another thread. It never was suggested it was my own whole track. It couldn't be by definition of a Natural Clear. It seems to be the most misunderstood level in Scn.

The Objective processes are great, loved delivering those. I've seen people wake up, become brighter and doing better in life. Tell me how asking someone to find a wall and touch that wall till all automaticities (that the person considers unwanted) disappear does amount to making the person believe being a chicken?
 

Veda

Sponsor
I think there is something to all your points, except for Pierrot, who seems to be here in a futile attempt to reestablish the credibility of the long discredited Xenu Bridge (complete with faux "ARC" and "PR tech" to make his message more digestible.)

Everyone else makes some valid points, IMO, and I would add that I have seldom used the word "charge" while auditing, and even more rarely while auditing outside Scientology Inc.

I have seen positive changes in people I've informally audited - in the best (non-cult/non-Implantology) sense of the word - people who were not "preloaded" with expectations, and who have never heard of "charge," and knew little or nothing of Scientology.

There are laws of the mind, and awkward as it is, some of these laws of the mind are described in the counseling materials of Dianetics and Scientology.

That the best of this counseling turned out to be a disguise layer, covering Hubbard's one man "psychological-political" operation does not completely detract from the occasional "positives" within the subject.

That "Psycho-Political operation" examined:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=54605&postcount=2
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Not getting the R6 implant at 75 mill wouldn't mean he was a Natural Clear.

Yeah, I got that. Probably didn't make myself clear (no pun intended). :)

[DOGMA]
The start of the time track for each individual was Inc 1 around 4 Quad. On the OT3 platen for Inc 1 it says "start of track". It was not a fixed point on the physical universe time track, like Inc 2 was, but was the start of the time track for that individual.

Presumably, the start of the pc's track in this universe only? Any number of universes and aberrations may have preceded it?

R6 changed its meaning over a few years, ending up as what got implanted at Inc 2 at 75 mill, but in 1964 it didn't have that meaning and included the CC Implant, then dated at Trillions 3 per one of the films on OT2. The date of the CC Implant was later changed to about 1.5 Quad (after being at 75 mill for a while too).
[/DOGMA]

That's helpful - thanks.

Re Inc 1. I find it hard to believe there was one entry point to this universe and all thetans formed an orderly queue to the "circus show". Is there more data on Inc 1? What I've seen is very brief.
 

Lovesnightsky

Silver Meritorious Patron
I've never heard of someone truly being hypnotised into believing they were a chicken, or anything else for that matter. I have heard of shows where paid plants in the audience pretend to be hypnotised and pretend to be chickens or dogs or whatever.

As to the analogy, well, a shared reality is indeed a working stage where people can play their games. Indeed you share a "reality" that you have a name, and are a human being, have thoughts and feelings, etc., things which are in fact subjective and not real to anyone else unless you share your reality with them.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
One of the things that tends to confuse people about hypnotism is 'how can an intelligent person be convinced that he's a chicken?'

That usually runs along the line of thought that it would take one hell of a lot of suggestion to 'implant' the kinds of rationalizations that people actually come up with, and, in cases like Hubbardism, the belief that such a complex rationalization would be practically impossible.

But, it's a common misconception. Actual hypnotic suggestion works *best* when the suggestion is 'bare bones' and the suggestee very intelligent and creative and able to *mock up* or 'Dub in' the missing rationalization.

Since the 'subject' creates his delusion himself, it 'belongs to him' and it actually reinforces the original suggestion when he 'rationalizes' it to skeptics.

Much like talking to Scientologists :)

Zinj

Or, the guy is running on automaticities and it is they that create the chicken and generally run on any data put into them without discrimination of source.
 

nw2394

Silver Meritorious Patron
...Sometimes I run stuff and look at it in different ways and charge either comes off or it doesn't. I don't have any preferences either way with regard to "before time", although I confess I used to think it was "cool" to run stuff before time started.

Inc 1 is, per LRH materials, "start of track". I suppose it is reasonable to assume that means 'start of time track'. However, I don't think it reasonable to assume that means 'start of time'.

Nick
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Inc 1 is, per LRH materials, "start of track". I suppose it is reasonable to assume that means 'start of time track'. However, I don't think it reasonable to assume that means 'start of time'.

Nick

Aha!!! You're being *reasonable*!!!!!

What kind of attitude is *that*?

Zinj
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Presumably, the start of the pc's track in this universe only? Any number of universes and aberrations may have preceded it?

Somewhere between 1978 and 1983 a bunch of OT3 and above bulletins and revisions came out, as well as the NOTs ones. The OT3-level ones included the concept of "earlier universes", which hadn't been part of the OT3 materials before. Since it was date-coincident with the release of NOTs, I figured earlier universe had something to do with NOTs. Ooh--exciting!!!

LRH had mentioned earlier universes before on tapes, but because this was in a secret OT3 issue it was somehow, er, secret now.

He didn't explain how this fitted in with Inc 1 being at the start of track, except by saying that some beings had had more than one Inc 1, and one of the remedies for a BT failing to blow on Inc 1 was to check "Earlier Incident 1?" and if that didn't work, then check "Earlier Universe?". The full procedure for handling a BT that fails to blow on Inc 1 is covered on my "OT3 checksheet".

Re Inc 1. I find it hard to believe there was one entry point to this universe and all thetans formed an orderly queue to the "circus show". Is there more data on Inc 1? What I've seen is very brief.

It didn't make a whole sense to me either. In the end I just handled it with the "suspension of disbelief" attitude one has to adopt to stay alive in the SO as a true believer. :)

Paul
 
Top