Corrections and Advances in More Workable Tech

Spirit

just another son of God
I think this is just a matter of semantics.

Of course, the past is NOT "now". In no way does the past exist in you. But, a being confuses past moments and experiences with the present by putting (largely unconscious) attention on them, and thereby "brings them to life" via active attention.

When an auditor asks, "find some incident in the past", he or she means to locate some memory or thought about some experiences that existed in the past, that of course, you LOOK AT NOW.

I like the view that that one creates one mind, every bit of it, moment by moment, right now in PT. But, the content of this mind, that exists IN PT, includes various significances and importances that include "time stamps" attached to various images and ideas. But every bit of it exists right now, in this moment called "present time".

There is no actual "past", it is always and only an idea, but the IDEA can very much affect you.
e PT can b
There is a tree in my front yard. I can have an idea of the tree. I can attach all sorts of meanings, significances, values and importances to this tree. The idea of the tree exists in my mind. But, the tree does NOT exist in my mind. The same is true for "the past".

Though time and the past, as things of the mind, exist in a different ways than most other "ideas".
Agreed! Try to find the present. If you succeed and find it, it is only for an instant. The PT moment becomes the past so fast it makes one wonder if true present time can ever be truly reached.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Roger,
There has been some question as to the validity of the Super Power Rundown Series as stated in this document. Is it authentic?

I wrote a long, detailed critique of those issues (archived at http://fzglobal.org/superpower.htm) back in late 2005. I audited them as written (they pretty much all sucked), and then reworked them into a form that seemed to produce a result. By which I mean the processes now made sense, were auditable without protest, and got some charge off. They were OK (after the rewrites) but weren't earth-shaking. The descriptions that went with the processes in the original issues were laughable and over-the-top marketing hype.

I recall Dan Koon posting somewhere that they weren't authentic Super Power issues, which wasn't a revelation to me.

Why ask Roger? He wasn't privy to Hubbard's super power data. That stuff is from Ralph H. It is known to not be authentic. Ralph may have had access to the materials when he was in the SO but what is there is not a copy of Hubby's HCOBs.

Ralph's "Super Power 2000" stuff is here: http://www.freezoneamerica.org/LRH2/.

I audited a bit of it and thought it was pretty good. Brief comments at the end of that other write-up.

Paul
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: An Analysis of a Screwy Tech!

RogeB wrote:
"The fact, however, is that the TR’s train a person to deliver an auditing command/question. They do not train the person to receive the answer or other emanations of the PC—this aspect of the auditing cycle is absent from the training. "

[...]

It makes me wonder if any one other than RogerB, Leon, CO2, Ted and FoTi and I are reading this thread and are interested in Scientology Tech. I have figured out a way of finding the weekly statistic for a thread, but it is a little time consuming and I have not done it for this thread. Is any one else interested and willing to let me know, by one of the many ways available to members (non members can write to [email protected] and I'll keep the comm confidential)?

All best wishes,

Ant


Thanks, Ant.

I reread what I wrote in '98 as per your archive above. Not bad, I'd say. I stand by those words today.

Just a few thoughts: Objectives as processes give the pc/client an opportunity to say something. That's it. When the pc is originating I don't barge on with process. When the pc is commenting, I carry on. Reference the TR's on that.

Objective processes stimulate communication if the auditor is prepared to receive.

Communication comes about because of perceptions, objective or subjective. Perceptions give meaning to the communication, for the pc.

Communication that is grounded in present time flows better and more understandably than communications from some other times or places.

Ted
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Agreed! Try to find the present. If you succeed and find it, it is only for an instant. The PT moment becomes the past so fast it makes one wonder if true present time can ever be truly reached.

In a very real sense every sensation that you receive from "out there" is time-delayed, and what you are perceiving IS from the past. Though, for all practical purposes, in most cases the delay is so short as to be insignificant.

Go outside and stand in the sunlight. That is sunlight from 8 minutes ago - it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us. What you see and experience as the sun is the sun of 8 minutes ago. In fact, you have NEVER directly experienced the sun. Not unless you went exterior with full perception, and went to it and pervaded the sun. But realize that even THAT is just one experience of the sun, up close with no distance, that is not "the real sun". The sun involves a great many relationships and contexts. It wouldn't be the same sun if the planets weren't spinning around it. It wouldn't be the same sun if it were not part of a larger galaxy and universe. Focusing on the tiny details of anything, even as a thetan pervading it, does NOT provide any sort of "full understanding".

There is a key differentiation here. If you judge or base "PT" on the activity of things "out there" or "in here", you will NEVER "be in PT".

The whole big deal to me about TR 0 was that everything STOPPED "in here", and my mind ceased all activity, becoming peaceful and calm like the mirror-surfaced lake described above. What gives the experience of truly "being in PT" is the CALMNESS - which comes from a total lack of any movement within or about the mind. It has NOTHING to do with "out there".

This experience of "being in PT" comes from ceasing all inner mental activity, and then quietly looking at ANYTHING (inside or outside). Any method that will get you to quiet the inner chatter, constant judgments, and playing out of dramas in your head with help bring the state about.

Now, yes, you CAN quiet the mind, and then contemplate THAT to the exclusion of all else. That is what is called true "self-awareness". You are aware of ones awareness and nothing else. While that IS a case of "being in PT", most people use this phrase to describe situations where a person is calm and serene while also observing or experiencing some aspect of the physical universe (but really, that is only ONE limited way that it can be done).

You can never "find the present" in things or motion. You fall into the present when your mind gets calm. That is a common notion of so many practices, from Alan Watts to Baba Ram Das, from Eckhart Tolle to any of a great many other New Age authors.

Consider that all sensations are the result of sense organs responding to waves of energy passing through space. Anything that you perceive is "old data". There is a distance, and it took some small amount of time for the energy to cross the distance, to where your sense organ reacted to it, and then sent a message to your brain. In terms of the sense data you are NEVER "in PT". Everything has a built in delay (please don't try to make sense of that in relation to any idea of "comm lag").

So, what you "experience" has already come and gone!

You NEVER actually experience anything as it "actually is". Again, for all practical purposes, that is fine. You can drive your car, make the morning cup of coffee, and watch the latest action movie. I mean think about it. Take the example of a movie. What you are actually experiencing are tiny colored dots moving on a flat screen. You are far enough away so that these dots form into various people and things, as interpreted by your mind, and you experience the movie.

There are no actual people making actual sounds in the TV. It is all electro-magnetic energy that gets INTERPRETED BY YOU. Now, walk outside. The SAME is exactly true there. You are receiving electro-magnetic energy waves, that stimulate your sense organs, and then you INTERPRET it all within certain frameworks.

What is the movie really? It is really moving colored dots on a screen. THAT is what it "really is". But you, ADD all the meaning and organize it into various frameworks of understanding. And, we each do so about the world and universe themselves too (on every level and in every regard).
 
Last edited:

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
I had this experience, which we can call "state 1".

State 1: Viewing the physical universe from a spot, from a point, looking out and "hearing out" from this point, with 360-degree perception. This occurs with no body, and occurs from what we might call "mind" or "spirit". Or, without using any label, this occurs without the aid of any physical sense, yet "you" are "aware", just as you are when associated with a physical body.

So, does this exist? Can it exist? Can it be brought about consistently in people? How often does any person experience this? Can it be controlled? And, on and on.

It happened to me. I am sure of it. I didn't imagine it. It lasted about 15 seconds or so, and it never happened again. I know of many other people who have done LOADS of Scientology services, who NEVER had this experience.


Good post, Gadfly :thumbsup:

But the fact that it can happen/ has happened to one person - in this case you - means that it is a possibility for all people. I don't have any proof of it, but I do regard it as almost axiomatic.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Good post, Gadfly :thumbsup:

But the fact that it can happen/ has happened to one person - in this case you - means that it is a possibility for all people. I don't have any proof of it, but I do regard it as almost axiomatic.

Yet, don't you find it at least slightly ironic that I, the person who experienced it, finds little or no value in it, and wouldn't encourage any other person to spend time trying to experience the same thing? :confused2:

Oh, wait, that's right, I am a Suppressive Person, and naturally would steer all others away from glorious states of awareness and power! :omg:

Also, I could have been hallucinating, or had an LSD "flashback". I don't think I did though . . . . . :biggrin:

But, I know what you mean. Let me add a bit more (what else is new, huh?).

We all look out at the world from a different range and relationship of experiences. No two of us have the same incredibly complex bundle of experiences. It is so often true that what one doesn't have can tend to define them to want it. But, once they get it, achieve it, or have it, it is often equally true that it is now NOT at all what one previously thought of it or assumed it to be - in terms of value, worth, necessity, or importance. In my life, I have NEVER found that anything I wanted turned out to be as I initially imagined. It didn't necessarily turn out badly, but it at least always turned out differently. And then, those new experiences add with everything else, and form a new viewpoint.

I have no problem with any person who is excited by such an idea to experiment and "go for it". I am VERY liberal when it comes to such things, and I am far outside of any box compared to most others. I am all for experimenting with the mind, trying out whatever the hell you want, and exploring it anyway you want - and pushing the boundaries of what now appear to be limitations.

I am just not so rigid in my certainty about any of it - even including my own experiences. I can and do easily exist with gobs of doubt and uncertainty (and I find it wholly refreshing).

In a certain way, interest in such things makes us kindred spirits. :biggrin:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
There are two things that are basically wrong with the in-session auditing tech set up as taught in $cn. :omg:

  1. . . .
  2. The basic required element of the “auditing comm.-cycle” that makes it work it not taught or drilled in auditor training. And what is that vital and basic element? It is the ability to receive the emanations of the PC. Hanks remark that he is “curious” in session is a practice of this . . . he has the wonderful ability to ask a question and then switch to inflowing the answer from the PC! To be noted is the fact that it is the “itsa-ing” off of the answer by the PC that makes a session work.

My understanding of "standard" TRs is this:

Part of TR-2 as written is understanding exactly what the pc says, to the extent that is necessary at the time. If you're running a bang-bang-bang repetitive process and the pc gives some answers that don't make a whole lot of sense to you, it's fine to not grok the answers too well as long as that's OK with the pc. He knows if you are getting it or not. If the pc really wants you to get the larger context what he is saying (TR-4) he will indicate it in some way and as long as you are paying attention you will pick it up.

But that is not basic Scn. The basic stuff in TR-2 is to grok what the pc says. It's even part of the drill for the coach to sometimes ask, "What did I say?" and if the student auditor can't repeat the line back verbatim it's a flunk.

-----

Despite what Hubbard said and others have echoed, the "auditing comm cycle" isn't always necessary, even with simple itsa. :). When the pc is ready, the auditor asks the question; this triggers something in the pc's mind; the pc sorts out an answer — those points are fine. Often the pc needs to state the answer; but it doesn't always need to be received by a separate live being "in order for as-isness to occur." Example: look at the therapeutic value of someone keeping a journal, or posting on ESMB (even before a post has been responded to). Hubbard's Self Analysis done solo is "standard" for a new person. Plus PaulsRobot has been working since 2006 and although it might feel like there is a separate auditor in the session the user clearly knows there isn't.

Sometimes it does help for the pc to be well acknowledged by an auditor for what he has said, but it is not a 100% every-time necessity.

There are many auditing procedures that are not itsa-based (talk therapy). In Scn, for example, on the lower levels there are various objective processes, Listing and Nulling, and the assessment by list method where you just bark the items at an upset pc and indicate charge.

In PaulsRobot3 (see module list at http://paulsrobot3.com/1st/module-list.htm) the non-itsa procedures include:

Rub & Yawn
6-direction process
Morph process
Reach & Withdraw on items and incidents
Acting out an incident
Assuming different attitudes and emotions

That list doesn't include the woo-woo modules involving subtle energy characteristics and actions like Color Breathing or Spot an Angel, where itsa doesn't really help at all.

Paul
 

Gadfly

Crusader
But the fact that it can happen/ has happened to one person - in this case you - means that it is a possibility for all people. I don't have any proof of it, but I do regard it as almost axiomatic.

I disagree that it is axiomatic.

Unless you exactly duplicated the conditions as they existed in and around me, at that moment, well, then there is no guarantee that others could experience the same or similar.

I know I talk about this a great deal, but one needs to get it. All experience is conditional, and depends on YOUR STATE OF MIND. By state of mind I mean the current sum total of all notions, ideas, beliefs, attitudes, agreements, goals, postulates, considerations, plans, where ones attention is, problems, education, views, likes, dislikes, and on and on. All of those things, taken as a whole that result in your UNIQUE viewpoint.

Then, THAT bundle of mind, known as a viewpoint, interacts with some aspect of the world and universe, and has an "experience". The specific experience was based on such a HUGE combination of factors and relationships, and people too often focus only on the details of the experience, and NOT on the framework that allowed the experience to manifest.

Also, when it happened to me, I had not yet read much about such a state, and I wasn't in any way striving to achieve it! THAT was part of the framework that nurtured it to occur - that I wasn't really trying for it in any way.

Anyway, the above was just a comment.

I suppose that it might be a good idea to compile reports of such things, to ascertain how common they were or were not. I mean, if I was the only one who ever experienced this, with such clarity, then I wouldn't suggest putting too much credence in it. But, if there were quite a few reports, that described it similarly, then maybe.

But another problem is how often Scientologists exaggerate, and even fabricate experiences (that they even believe to be true), to make reality conform with their own high-falootin' expectations about such things. There are just SO MANY variables involved here.

Also, as I said earlier, go for it, if it floats your boat. None of us can help but want the things we want. While we may be able to change and choose HOW we achieve our desires, there is very little any of us can do to CHANGE the nature of our desires (at least in the short term). You have the idea that what I described is real, can be achieved by others, can possibly be stabilized, and is valuable. You can't CHOOSE that, and for now, THAT is you. Just as for now, I am me. But, thank God, we are all changing into something else!!!!!!
 
Last edited:

Aiki

Patron with Honors
Agreed! Try to find the present. If you succeed and find it, it is only for an instant. The PT moment becomes the past so fast it makes one wonder if true present time can ever be truly reached.

Or you could start from the idea that time is real You could start from the idea that the past is real therefor.

The pt moment disappears? Becomes the past? Well, such is the way of saying it to 'fit' how we think yes, or rather to be honest how the 'experts' tell us to see it because I guarantee most haven't observed or thought that up themselves.

What they have done however is notice they can view this physical world which of itself exists in the realm of pt,view it to a degree, enough to keep them stable.

So what is the past? It does exist. A zen master will tell you it does exist and if he's giving you a lesson he may well tell you it doesn't. I mean, he is a zen master after all:coolwink:

So let's assume time is real and the past is real. Can you feel the relief? Even the universal relief. Can you hear your mates saying ahhhhh, sense at last, we thought you had lost it for a minute there.

Those with common sense I say know its true and real. Those who get too overintellectual about it get all complicated and 'sophisticated' but to me lost.

Explaining how it is so fundamentally....now that's the apparently hard thing to do. Zen for example is always apparently contradictory yet simple and so would say there definitely is the past and also say there is only now. It ends up like all many great things as there is a past then there isn't a past and then after a great realization back to there is a past..

I'll throw another little bone into the mix for you. After accepting there is such a real thing as the past then add thus little pearler....there is such a thing also as here. They are two different things.

Peace.Aiki.
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
Scientology loaded language, cult based assumptions, and hubbard's double think, oh my. Using scientology to explain scientology with a purpose of spiritual enlightenment is precisely what hubbard intended, a circular mental merry go round than entrenches a person deep into a crevasse of assigning significance to something that never worked as we were lead to believe.

Cheese meet trap.

From a recovery perspective when looking at traumatic bonding, it's natural trying to make sense of it all, I've watched people here for years trying to do just that, hubbard, scientology, and the so called tek are the authority while ex's come to terms with the deception, if they can at all. People still trying to "make it go right" with the tek, a residual of cult indoctrination that makes for long threads but little else unless one wishes to see the mechanics of what hubbard can accomplish with psychological manipulation installing cognitive dissonance into good people that were lied to.

Everyone is worthy and enough being themselves, whatever the imperfections and gifts are inside.

“You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection”
― Gautama Buddha

Traumatic Bonding
http://victimsofpsychopaths.wordpress.com/traumatic-bonding/
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Scientology loaded language, cult based assumptions, and hubbard's double think, oh my. Using scientology to explain scientology with a purpose of spiritual enlightenment is precisely what hubbard intended, a circular mental merry go round than entrenches a person deep into a crevasse of assigning significance to something that never worked as we were lead to believe.

Cheese meet trap.

From a recovery perspective when looking at traumatic bonding, it's natural trying to make sense of it all, I've watched people here for years trying to do just that, hubbard, scientology, and the so called tek are the authority while ex's come to terms with the deception, if they can at all. People still trying to "make it go right" with the tek, a residual of cult indoctrination that makes for long threads but little else unless one wishes to see the mechanics of what hubbard can accomplish with psychological manipulation installing cognitive dissonance into good people that were lied to.

Everyone is worthy and enough being themselves, whatever the imperfections and gifts are inside.

“You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection”
― Gautama Buddha

Traumatic Bonding
http://victimsofpsychopaths.wordpress.com/traumatic-bonding/


Phew, am I pleased to see you FreeBeing!

Lol.

That article is new to me and it explains certain things from a perspective that I hadn't seen before, I tend to wander off these days and walk, walk, walk any residual feelings of trauma and loss off, that feels right to me and it goes without saying that some things can't be 'handled' ... they are done now and can't be undone and I choose to accept that yet live the best life I can (and life is very good).

Thanks for being so supportive, so human and caring, I'm very glad you're here.

:wink:

 

Gadfly

Crusader


You have no idea what I believe ...

:no:

I do.

I just sat down on a comfortable chair, went exterior with full perception, visited you personally, instantly appeared by postulate alone, blanketed your head and pervaded your space using tractor and pressor beams, assumed a condition of total affinity (where distance disappears to zero and communication as we know it becomes unnecessary because I have flown out the Top of the Tone Scale, and the Know To Mystery Scale), and in an insouciant split second KNEW and UNDERSTOOD more about you than you yourself know!

ARC=U

It is so great being an Operating Thetan!

Q.E.D.

Is that enough Scientology lingo for you? :biggrin:

(Joking & Degrading - it is in my blood)
 
Last edited:

Free Being Me

Crusader
Phew, am I pleased to see you FreeBeing!

Lol.

That article is new to me and it explains certain things from a perspective that I hadn't seen before, I tend to wander off these days and walk, walk, walk any residual feelings of trauma and loss off, that feels right to me and it goes without saying that some things can't be 'handled' ... they are done now and can't be undone and I choose to accept that yet live the best life I can (and life is very good).

Thanks for being so supportive, so human and caring, I'm very glad you're here.

:wink:


Thank you for your kind words and your compassionate nature being here ITYIWT, you're a beacon of light. We each find our own way to come out of the cult, I'm glad the traumatic bonding information has given you insight, it floored me when I first read it and explained why I was clinging to cult think. Yes, life is good. I hope people here read it helping them along the path out of scientology.

Namaste!

:bighug:
 
Last edited:

Spirit

just another son of God
I wrote a long, detailed critique of those issues (archived at http://fzglobal.org/superpower.htm) back in late 2005. I audited them as written (they pretty much all sucked), and then reworked them into a form that seemed to produce a result. By which I mean the processes now made sense, were auditable without protest, and got some charge off. They were OK (after the rewrites) but weren't earth-shaking. The descriptions that went with the processes in the original issues were laughable and over-the-top marketing hype.

I recall Dan Koon posting somewhere that they weren't authentic Super Power issues, which wasn't a revelation to me.



Ralph's "Super Power 2000" stuff is here: http://www.freezoneamerica.org/LRH2/.

I audited a bit of it and thought it was pretty good. Brief comments at the end of that other write-up.

Paul
Excellent! I have retained all of this data, backed up into my SHTF folder ( a folder of vital data preserved in the event of losing web access or in the event of a catastrophe). I take spiritual tech very seriously and do not want to be cast back into the depths of Wogdom. :nervous:

Is there any reason that these processes should not be run solo? Also, it is my understanding that these processes can be run on any individual regardless of case level.
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
I disagree that it is axiomatic.

Unless you exactly duplicated the conditions as they existed in and around me, at that moment, well, then there is no guarantee that others could experience the same or similar.

I know I talk about this a great deal, but one needs to get it. All experience is conditional, and depends on YOUR STATE OF MIND. By state of mind I mean the current sum total of all notions, ideas, beliefs, attitudes, agreements, goals, postulates, considerations, plans, where ones attention is, problems, education, views, likes, dislikes, and on and on. All of those things, taken as a whole that result in your UNIQUE viewpoint.

Then, THAT bundle of mind, known as a viewpoint, interacts with some aspect of the world and universe, and has an "experience". The specific experience was based on such a HUGE combination of factors and relationships, and people too often focus only on the details of the experience, and NOT on the framework that allowed the experience to manifest.

Also, when it happened to me, I had not yet read much about such a state, and I wasn't in any way striving to achieve it! THAT was part of the framework that nurtured it to occur - that I wasn't really trying for it in any way.

Anyway, the above was just a comment.

I suppose that it might be a good idea to compile reports of such things, to ascertain how common they were or were not. I mean, if I was the only one who ever experienced this, with such clarity, then I wouldn't suggest putting too much credence in it. But, if there were quite a few reports, that described it similarly, then maybe.

But another problem is how often Scientologists exaggerate, and even fabricate experiences (that they even believe to be true), to make reality conform with their own high-falootin' expectations about such things. There are just SO MANY variables involved here.

Also, as I said earlier, go for it, if it floats your boat. None of us can help but want the things we want. While we may be able to change and choose HOW we achieve our desires, there is very little any of us can do to CHANGE the nature of our desires (at least in the short term). You have the idea that what I described is real, can be achieved by others, can possibly be stabilized, and is valuable. You can't CHOOSE that, and for now, THAT is you. Just as for now, I am me. But, thank God, we are all changing into something else!!!!!!


Re that bold line: Sure, our experiences may not be identical, but I have legs and I can walk and you have legs and you can walk; so we can both walk. And while our reality boxes may be different and the experience of walking is not identical yet the fact of us both being able to walk is established.

If you want to get more hairsplitting about it than that you'll need to get TAJ in on the discussion.

And as for what you said elsewhere about not considering the experience ( or the state - which was it?) to be particularly valuable - an appreciation of its value can only come once the state of being able to locate oneself in space at will and with 360 degree perception etc is stable and you can interact with others and you can play games in that state and you get to know something of the context of what the being is capable of in that state, etc etc etc . . . . . only then. Will you be able to assess the value of the state.


cheers
 

Spirit

just another son of God
Or you could start from the idea that time is real You could start from the idea that the past is real therefor.

The pt moment disappears? Becomes the past? Well, such is the way of saying it to 'fit' how we think yes, or rather to be honest how the 'experts' tell us to see it because I guarantee most haven't observed or thought that up themselves.

What they have done however is notice they can view this physical world which of itself exists in the realm of pt,view it to a degree, enough to keep them stable.

So what is the past? It does exist. A zen master will tell you it does exist and if he's giving you a lesson he may well tell you it doesn't. I mean, he is a zen master after all:coolwink:

So let's assume time is real and the past is real. Can you feel the relief? Even the universal relief. Can you hear your mates saying ahhhhh, sense at last, we thought you had lost it for a minute there.

Those with common sense I say know its true and real. Those who get too overintellectual about it get all complicated and 'sophisticated' but to me lost.

Explaining how it is so fundamentally....now that's the apparently hard thing to do. Zen for example is always apparently contradictory yet simple and so would say there definitely is the past and also say there is only now. It ends up like all many great things as there is a past then there isn't a past and then after a great realization back to there is a past..

I'll throw another little bone into the mix for you. After accepting there is such a real thing as the past then add thus little pearler....there is such a thing also as here. They are two different things.

Peace.Aiki.

Aiki,
The past and time may not be an illusion as you stated. I am not certain so I am not going to position myself on the issue at this time. It does seem to be true that the most important aspect is that the point of power is in present time and this datum is workable.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
If you want to get more hairsplitting about it than that you'll need to get TAJ in on the discussion.

:hysterical:

Re that bold line: Sure, our experiences may not be identical, but I have legs and I can walk and you have legs and you can walk; so we can both walk. And while our reality boxes may be different and the experience of walking is not identical yet the fact of us both being able to walk is established.

And as for what you said elsewhere about not considering the experience ( or the state - which was it?) to be particularly valuable - an appreciation of its value can only come once the state of being able to locate oneself in space at will and with 360 degree perception etc is stable and you can interact with others and you can play games in that state and you get to know something of the context of what the being is capable of in that state, etc etc etc . . . . . only then. Will you be able to assess the value of the state.

cheers

And, while the fact of us both walking HAS been established, the fact of stably operating exterior has NOT AT ALL been established.

I am going to try to explain something here, and it is NOT easy to do.

I truly do NOT at all grasp WHY a being would want to be out of the stuff that he wants to play a game within. I mean, being interiorized is being interiorized any way you cut the cake. I don't at all fathom why a person would want to exist out of his head, out of a body, with full perception of MEST from some outside point, with no contact with any MEST means of senses, and yet "play a game" within the stuff of MEST. It is like "going out a little", meaning that you exteriorize from the body, but them you stay totally INTERIORIZED into MEST and all of its (cough) "games". That IS what you are talking about.

By the way I think it is a slap in the face of the Divine to reduce the grand glory of all Creation to Hubbard's lame concept of "playing a game" - this demented view that THAT is ALL that "life is doing". How absurdly simplistic.

So you "operate a body" from a distance. With tractor beams and pressor beams, or by intention alone. You don't use the body senses at all - you perceive using the theta perceptics from outside. So, you will play meat-body games, pushing the body around, while exterior with full perception. I just DON'T GET IT! :duh:

Look at all the games across all of the dynamics, and really imagine what this would be like. Don't just vaguely let it cross your mind, but make it real examples. Really think this out please. Eat dinner. Mmm? So I will "taste" the fish using my theta perceptics. I won't have any sensation in my mouth when to swallow, at least not through the body sensory channels, so I will have to do that too using my theta perceptics.

I will read a book. So, I will make the body hold the book, and intend it to flip the pages, while reading using my theta perceptics. Lets move up to the second dynamic - this should be interesting.

No body senses, huh? No sensations of sexual arousal, I mean, unless you want to extract them from the body using a tractor beam. So, I guess no sex at all, right?

The TRUTH is that you will be functioning as if you were operating a DOLL BODY. If you totally disconnect from the body sensory apparatus, and use only the theta perceptics, the physical body becomes for all practical purposes a doll body.

So, what "games" are you going to play in this state? I am curious. You could go bowling with the bowling team. That is a 3rd dynamic. Again, why bother?

So, I suspect it is quite true that ANY thetan who was truly 100% out stably, would have NO INTEREST in playing any MEST games at all. And, that is WHY you will NEVER be able to do it - because as long as you still WANT something from MEST on any dynamic, you will NEVER be able to be stably exterior. They are mutually incompatible. As long as you remain interiorized into MEST in any way, and want to play any game on any dynamic, you will not be able to exist in a stable exterior state.

Wow! I just realized something. I am not usual, in the sense that I never had the usual interests as others, I have always had little interest in MEST materialistic crap, making money, competing and beating others in some game, and so forth. I am also what might be called a hermit or loner. I just don't need human companionship to feel quite okay. I never enjoyed being in ANY 3rd dynamic, other than maybe a pool team, a rock band or small meditation group. So, I have, from the start, not really ever had much of an interest to "be here" actively playing what you would call "games". I liked art, beauty, nature, animals, and creative things. So, maybe THAT had more than a little to do with it.

Hubbard set up a goal that is impossible to be realized. Nice guy, huh? He probably knew that you can't be fully out and be involved (in) at the same time.

Now, you can be partially out, in the sense of having a wider sense of space, clarity and calmness, and still be involved with some MEST "game".

I want to end with something. Whenever I went really slam-bang exterior, and I did OFTEN, even though not always with exterior perception, I always wanted to GET AWAY from the Org, and DO NOTHING. I went for very long walks. I took long drives in the country. I just wanted to exist and be as a calm disinterested observer. I did NOT want to "be" in any Hubbard sense of "assuming an identity". I was entirely happy assuming NO identity at all. I just wanted to BE - a nothing, quietly looking out at the world. At my highest and most immense states of this, I did NOT have any interest or desire to play any game. And that was what typified this state more than anything else. NO INTEREST!

I was somewhat above "curious" on the CDEI scale. I could and did look at gorgeous young girls, who previously would have grabbed my attention, and . . . NOTHING. Nothing at all. NO INTEREST! I couldn't even imagine a sexual thought. I was fully OUT. And it was GOOD.

Now, to me that simply meant that I rose above the Tone Scale, that I transcended all games, and truly was existing as a static. It was the ONLY thing of value for me. But, that state CANNOT exist while you are playing a game.

You can't exist in a "no games condition" while existing in a "games condition".

To me I got a taste of what it meant - this idea "static" - the "nothingness" of eastern philosophy. But whenever I would tell anybody about it, at the Org, they would want me to GET BUSY in some game. And, I would, and I would then lose the state.

Now, I live out in the woods. Nobody bothers me to play any games. I am pretty light most of the time.

To play any game you must be "in the game". There is no way around it, though I don't doubt for a moment that you will probably keep trying to get out, yet still play in some game.

The value of such a state, to me, was the experience of self as nothing - as a static. But as soon as you get involved in ANY "game", or any reality at all, the aspect of static fades away, because instead of focusing on the creator (static), you are now focusing on the creations of the static.

Anyway, that is how I see it, at this moment. I am trying to make sense of it as much as you are.
 
Last edited:

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
What you write is wonderful, and I agree with you all of the way. Insisting on playing mest games while also insisting on being exterior to them at the same time makes no sense at all.

But hey. . . . there's other games than mest games you know.


Actually I do disagree with one point you made - the universe was made for having fun in. Or is being made. That is a pretty damn high purpose I reckon. God should be chuffed for having thought of it.
 
Top