Common Sense Summary

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Dianetics and Scientology are a collective composite of the parts of a series of Games Matrices.

To fully understand either subject requires viewing from the top down.

The whole of Dianetics and Scientology including all parts and Organizaation is a composite Games Package.

That is why it is very hard to view as each part tends to be in conflict or opposition to other parts.

A Games Matrix Package is created as a substitute for the being - it is based on the winner being right. It is not based on truth.

It is Games within Games within Games, ad infinitum!

Studying the ball after a Game does not give you the complete history of the Game.

Start at the source point - its much easier.

LRH put together a complete live dramatizing operating Games Matrix Package! :omg:

Alan
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Dianetics and Scientology are a collective composite of the parts of a series of Games Matrices.

To fully understand either subject requires viewing from the top down.

The whole of Dianetics and Scientology including all parts and Organizaation is a composite Games Package.

That is why it is very hard to view as each part tends to be in conflict or opposition to other parts.

A Games Matrix Package is created as a substitute for the being - it is based on the winner being right. It is not based on truth.

It is Games within Games within Games, ad infinitum!

Studying the ball after a Game does not give you the complete history of the Game.

Start at the source point - its much easier.

LRH put together a complete live dramatizing operating Games Matrix Package! :omg:

Alan

My view is that the scientology "Games Matrix Package!" is about getting out of it or at least to the point of seeing the next larger context "Games Matrix Package!"

Hubbards biggest rule for his "Games Matrix Package!" is; to play you follow the rules, and if you dont, you dont get to the next "Games Matrix Package!" (larger context).

So either you follow the printed instructions or play some other game.

But if you dont see yourself as using "Games Matrix Packages" as a substitute for beingness, well your stuck playing something.

Some people like Hubbards "Games Matrix Package!" even though players from other teams are in it playing sabotage.

If you would be so kind as to give some simple method of "starting at the source point" and how to view "from the top down" perhaps I could skip playing in the Hubbard "Games Matrix Package!".

Much of what you say has the ring of truth to it, but the gestalt escapes me.

It seems to me that Hubbard built a functional ladder, that just reaches above the lip of the pit, but everyone is arguing about whether to paint it or decorate it with bunting.

alex
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Study a piece - become the piece!

Study the whole - become the whole!

Very Zen! :)

LRH pretended he was building a creation that would help all of mankind - the truth is he built a creation - where-in he was the sole source and only he could be right.

The rest of us were co-opt to be pieces.

Layers of identities upon layers of identities.

Layers of Orgs upon layers of Orgs.

Each an artificial creator of who or what is below it.

There was a lack of co-creation for each being - if you dare originate - you are an SP. :angry:

Only one false spirit the rest artificial creations.

Alan
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Dianetics and Scientology are a collective composite of the parts of a series of Games Matrices.

To fully understand either subject requires viewing from the top down.

The whole of Dianetics and Scientology including all parts and Organizaation is a composite Games Package.

That is why it is very hard to view as each part tends to be in conflict or opposition to other parts.

A Games Matrix Package is created as a substitute for the being - it is based on the winner being right. It is not based on truth.

It is Games within Games within Games, ad infinitum!

Studying the ball after a Game does not give you the complete history of the Game.

Start at the source point - its much easier.

LRH put together a complete live dramatizing operating Games Matrix Package! :omg:

Alan

I think that I am simply looking at a blank when I read the words "Games Matrix Package." These words don't make any sense to me. There are no examples provided for a "Games Matrix Package." The mass is completely missing.

What I do know is that any game is a created Game, and anything created has an arbitrary basis. And that applies to Alan's game as well.



.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
My view is that the scientology "Games Matrix Package!" is about getting out of it or at least to the point of seeing the next larger context "Games Matrix Package!"

Hubbards biggest rule for his "Games Matrix Package!" is; to play you follow the rules, and if you dont, you dont get to the next "Games Matrix Package!" (larger context).

So either you follow the printed instructions or play some other game.

But if you dont see yourself as using "Games Matrix Packages" as a substitute for beingness, well your stuck playing something.

Some people like Hubbards "Games Matrix Package!" even though players from other teams are in it playing sabotage.

If you would be so kind as to give some simple method of "starting at the source point" and how to view "from the top down" perhaps I could skip playing in the Hubbard "Games Matrix Package!".

Much of what you say has the ring of truth to it, but the gestalt escapes me.

It seems to me that Hubbard built a functional ladder, that just reaches above the lip of the pit, but everyone is arguing about whether to paint it or decorate it with bunting.

alex

If "Games Matrix Package" is the whole shebang then one only needs to look at how it is put together and that's it.

If a rule is arbitrary then recognize it as arbitrary. That is all there is to it.

I think that is what LRH started out saying, and that is all that I am interested in.

If LRH got introverted and got stuck into what he was trying to unravel, then that is what happened. Recognize that as such.

I see LRH as a casualty.

.
 
Last edited:

Vinaire

Sponsor
Study a piece - become the piece!

Study the whole - become the whole!

Very Zen! :)

LRH pretended he was building a creation that would help all of mankind - the truth is he built a creation - where-in he was the sole source and only he could be right.

The rest of us were co-opt to be pieces.

Layers of identities upon layers of identities.

Layers of Orgs upon layers of Orgs.

Each an artificial creator of who or what is below it.

There was a lack of co-creation for each being - if you dare originate - you are an SP. :angry:

Only one false spirit the rest artificial creations.

Alan

I think LRH got distracted along the way and got introverted in the game he wanted to unravel.

So, what should one do?

Find out up to which point LRH was on track, and then find out where he went off the track.

Lastly, trust yourself.

.
 
LRH pretended he was building a creation that would help all of mankind - the truth is he built a creation - where-in he was the sole source and only he could be right.


If by this you mean the Co$, then you are clearly correct.

If by this you mean the subject of scientology, then you are correct ONLY to the degree the individual excepts LRH's status as "sole source". Many did not.

Despite Hubbard's presentation of the subject of scientology, there is much there that is amazingly useful to individuals. Moreover the validity of the practice is not dependent on LRH, although much of the historical misapplication arises from adoption of a "dependent" perspective.


Mark A. Baker
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
The mathematical approach that LRH took toward survival is coded into the TONE SCALE. Initially it was simply an idea expressed as follows:

In surviving, the ultimate success would be immortality, and the ultimate failure would be death. In the middle would be mere existence without hope of much success and without fear of failure. There will be gradations of success above it, and gradations of failure below it.

This idea of survival and succumb wouldn't exist outside of a game.

NO GAME = NO SURVIVAL and NO SUCCUMB

So ultimate success in a game would be complete unraveling of the game, and complete failure in a game would be becoming totally identified with the game. There will be gradations between these two extremes, and, maybe, mathematics could help us get insight into them.

Here is a summary of what Hubbard initially conceived as the Tone Scale.


The tone scale provides a measure for sanity in an individual.

The location and development of an engram begins with apathy, develops into anger (or the various facets of antagonism), proceeds into boredom, and arrives at last in cheerfulness or vanishes utterly.

An individual with a zero tone would be dead. Zero to one is that emotional bracket which may be denoted as apathy. From one to two is the range of antagonism. From two to three is the range of boredom. From three to four is the range of cheerfulness. The term tone four denotes a person who has achieved rationality and cheerfulness.

Each engram in the reactive mind can be said to possess a tone value. Above two point five an engram could not be considered to have any great power to affect the analytical mind. Engrams can be computed as they lie along the dynamics. Complete rationality depends upon exhaustion of the reactive mind.

The initial diagnosis is done by the assignation of a general tone to denote the condition of an individual’s reactive mind. An engram normally can be expected to run from its initial value in the apathy or anger range to tone four.



So an association in the mind that has become a total identification can be placed at the bottom of the tone scale.

And any association that is recognized as an arbitrary association and which can be changed around at will, shall exist at the top of the tone scale.

.
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
If by this you mean the Co$, then you are clearly correct.

If by this you mean the subject of scientology, then you are correct ONLY to the degree the individual excepts LRH's status as "sole source". Many did not.

Despite Hubbard's presentation of the subject of scientology, there is much there that is amazingly useful to individuals. Moreover the validity of the practice is not dependent on LRH, although much of the historical misapplication arises from adoption of a "dependent" perspective.

Mark A. Baker

I cover a lot of the sources of Scio here:

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=33
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
I cover a lot of the sources of Scio here:

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=33

I believe that the ultimate source of "Scio" is the person viewing it. So, there are as many versions of "Scio" as there are viewpoints.

You may say, "It is some other viewpoint presenting Scio to me." But, actually, you are the source of the "form" of Scio in which you view it.

Here Alan is interpreting the source of Scio to me. But I shall be source of the Scio that I perceive. It may agree with Alan's viewpoint, or it may not. But that form of Scio that I perceive, would be mine.

LRH declared himself to be the Source of Scientology. Fine. He came up with a certain organization of data pertinent to the present game. But the moment I perceive that organization in its totality, I become the source of it. To the degree I see an alternate organization of that data, then I become the source of that alternate organization of data.

Don't let anybody tell you that you are not the source of what you experience.

.
 
I cover a lot of the sources of Scio here:

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=33

It's a good post.

I had the benefit of being aware of many "other" & "earlier" sources before ever encountering scientology so I never got sucked into the "LRH, Source" myth.

This no doubt had a great deal to do with why my involvement with scientology was short & sweet. Short: I wasn't about to let the "agreement" be one-sidedly renegotiated once I was "in". Sweet: I have had good gains from sessions as a result of willingness to look at EVERYTHING.

Most of the tech is "good" and much of it is reasonably & simply presented by LRH, whatsoever the original source.

I personally have little use for LRH policy and none for the SO, Co$, or affiliated organizations.

His prose could have used improvement but it was sufficient to the task. :)


Mark A. Baker
 
Dianetics and Scientology are a collective composite of the parts of a series of Games Matrices.

To fully understand either subject requires viewing from the top down.

The whole of Dianetics and Scientology including all parts and Organizaation is a composite Games Package.

That is why it is very hard to view as each part tends to be in conflict or opposition to other parts.

A Games Matrix Package is created as a substitute for the being - it is based on the winner being right. It is not based on truth.

It is Games within Games within Games, ad infinitum!

Studying the ball after a Game does not give you the complete history of the Game.

Start at the source point - its much easier.

LRH put together a complete live dramatizing operating Games Matrix Package! :omg:

Alan

Nice summary.

I utterly agree with the idea of the "whole" ("all parts & organization") being dramatization of LRH's case.

That doesn't obviate the utility of the the tech. It just acknowledges Hubbard's failures at handling his own case and keeping that from impinging on the organization he created.

Plenty of "independents" still use scientology related tech in their endeavors, howsoever they may attribute it.

Personally I think there is clear room for improvement on "group tech". Nick recently posted an excellent thread which discusses a piece of tech from a freezoner on another board. I think it has a lot of merit as a way of undercutting "group engrams".

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=74129#post74129 :thumbsup:


Mark A. Baker
 

nw2394

Silver Meritorious Patron
If by this you mean the Co$, then you are clearly correct.

If by this you mean the subject of scientology, then you are correct ONLY to the degree the individual excepts LRH's status as "sole source". Many did not.

Despite Hubbard's presentation of the subject of scientology, there is much there that is amazingly useful to individuals. Moreover the validity of the practice is not dependent on LRH, although much of the historical misapplication arises from adoption of a "dependent" perspective.


Mark A. Baker

Mark,

I don't know how much of Alan's stuff you've read/heard. There is a lot on his site. To a Scientologist, when you first encounter it, it sounds like Alan has simply reworded existing Scn tech.

Well, there is quite a deal of truth in that. But the more you study what Alan's and Hubbard's sources were, the more you realise that neither is a rewording of the other - they both stand on the shoulders of those who've gone before.

Also Alan has some interesting, er, twists that either aren't in Scn or aren't given emphasis.

Nick
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Hubbard's description of the problem with the human mind may be summarized as follows:


Traumatic perceptics create associations and identities in the analytical mind where such did not exist before. The individual then uses these associations and identifications to interpret what it perceives. The mind perceives the impressions left by past perceptics in the form of a time track of experience.

This derangement itself, having become part of the analyzer, cannot be perceived by the analyzer. The impression left of those traumatic perceptics, which cause this derangement, cannot be perceived by ordinary means.

Both body and mind get aligned to the engram (the impression left by traumatic perceptics) and get activated into its pattern when similar perceptics appear in the environment. The engramic content then gets dramatized.

The analyzer cannot permit itself to be wrong. So it has to justify what it does under the influence of the engram. Engramic thought is irrational identity-thought by which the mind is made to conceive identities where only vague similarities may exist.



So the target of correction are these deranged associations that have somehow come into being in the mind because of traumatic experiences.

But this amounts to the observer himself becoming corrupted and therefore not being able to observe the corruption. But there must be some way for the observer to know that he is not quite himself.

.
 
Mark,

I don't know how much of Alan's stuff you've read/heard. There is a lot on his site. To a Scientologist, when you first encounter it, it sounds like Alan has simply reworded existing Scn tech.Well, there is quite a deal of truth in that. But the more you study what Alan's and Hubbard's sources were, the more you realise that neither is a rewording of the other - they both stand on the shoulders of those who've gone before.

Also Alan has some interesting, er, twists that either aren't in Scn or aren't given emphasis.

Nick

I know OF his stuff but I'm not "familiar" with it. I've heard a lot of good things about Knowledgism, and not just from Alan. :)

My personal take is that "anything that works has a measure of validity". More than likely someone's been using it for years, too. :coolwink:

It seems obvious to me that since people have been working on questions of mental phenomena & spiritual practices for literally thousands of years that many of the techniques evolved are LIKELY to have similiarities. There are a certain number of naturally occurring "constraints" on the problems they all seek to address.

This is even more so when people from "different practices" are in fact refining or evolving materials which they have discovered for themselves among the SAME or SIMILAR earlier practices. Add the "spinoff" factor and what becomes most interesting are the DIFFERENCES.

Hence my "liberal" viewpoint about the various practices. Never know when I might need a piece of tech someone else has. :thumbsup:

Even when "in" the church, I never saw the point of either having a "church" or revering "Ron". My personal take on scientology has always been more on a line with respect for the way the subject of spiritual insight is presented in a progressive fashion, and I don't mean the MARKETING of the BRIDGE.

Scientology introduces tech to people in simple pieces which progressively serve to facilitate personal gains. Thus scientology does NOT require mastery of complex or arcane practices in order for the individual to get real benefit.

All the hero-worshipping & church based crap is simply "added inapplicable" data. It's a shame really, when you consider how useful the basic approach is. I consider it all results from the "group case" of the membership and most especially from Hubbard's. [Note prior comments of mine to that effect.}

"Purist" or "only path" attitudes are ridiculous at face.


Mark A. Baker
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Here is a continuation of the summary about the effects of tight associations in one's mind upon the operation of the mind.

As the analytical mind becomes more corrupted due to the infiltration of traumatic perceptics from outside it reacts to unsolved problems as follows:
(a) Succumbs – justifies the organism’s reaction to them
(b) Neglect – apathetically may neglect them
(c) Avoid – avoid them in many intricate ways
(d) Flee – causes the organism to attempt to flee from them
(e) Attack – attacks them

The problems contain their own solutions. But the analytical mind is unable to pull the strings. It cannot even isolate the situation. It becomes entirely indiscriminate and irrational.

The individual’s tone drops as engramic patterns take over more and more of individual determinism. The analytical mind introverts not being able to discover the source of its command. Below 2.0 the individual is more or less in a state of being commanded by its engramic patterns.

The tone of the analytical mind determines the degree to which engramic data is hard wired to bodies controls. The engramic pattern may be fed in sequence to accomplish a dramatization.

How traumatized the mind is depends entirely on the traumatic perceptics received from the environment. The auditor is only interested in what has been done to the person. The acts committed by the person are useful for diagnostics purposes only.


.
 
Top