Corrections and Advances in More Workable Tech

[FoTi]

OK -- I did NOT say that I had "NO auditor training or experience" -- what I wrote in answer to Leon's question was that I am not (do not consider myself) a "trained and experienced auditor."

In fact, I did a number of scientology "services" that I don't care to delineate here just to satisfy your curiosity, and one amongst those was the HQS course, as part of which I audited my twin for maybe 6 hours (too long ago to remember) before we reached the "EP" required by the checksheet.

... So does that mean I am now qualified to call myself a "trained and experienced auditor?" Didn't think so, which is one reason I don't represent myself as such.



You can view it however you wish, but if you think such a remark is going to provoke me into publishing on the internet details about myself that I prefer to keep private, you are mistaken.

Thanks for answering my question and clarifying the issue. And by the way, I'm not trying to 'provoke' you into doing anything. You just seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

 

[Vinaire]

Hi Vinnair.

I think you will find that it is more an inadequacy of of language rather than an inconsistency in the statement of the first factor.

By this I mean that it conforms with the experiential understanding that one has of the the sequence of "start change stop" to project it to an intellectual understanding to the absolute beginning of everything, whereas itis beyond any language created by man.

I personally have little time for Hubbard's Factors and Axioms, or who ever he got them from, as they are simply an intellectual exercise. True understanding is an experiential exercise.

It is assumed by most, if not all, that time as we observe it, "must" have had a beginning. I disagree with this assumption, and I do not accept that it is self-evident. To me time is another, that is a fourth, dimension, and like the other three, it has neither beginning nor end. We observe it as the "passage of time" because we are not able to view the fourth dimension as we do the other three.

David.

I think language is quite capable of expressing the is-ness. There is no mystery until you put it there. Let me express it again in plain language.

Hubbard’s static with special qualities is a speculation. Hubbard gave static a beingness. It became “individuality” to him… the ultimate in self-determinism. A beingness is a manifestation. “Individuality” is a manifestation. Hubbard’s static is a manifestation.

Hubbard made a manifestation to be the source of all other manifestations.

This is very much in line with the traditional premise entertained in the Semitic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Hubbard simply gave it a new garb pretending it to be coming from the East. He had no inkling what East is about.

According to East, the background of manifestation is “absence of manifestation.” That background is UNKNOWABLE because there is nothing manifested to be known.

FACTOR 1 and AXIOM 1 may look good on the surface, but they have curves of "cause" and "individuality" as the ultimate reality thrown into them.

How is this "cause" or "individuality" manifested in the first place.

If they exist they are manifestations.

The same can be said about SPACE, TIME or any other dimension.

.

 

[olska]

Thanks for answering my question and clarifying the issue. And by the way, I'm not trying to 'provoke' you into doing anything. You just seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

What if I had answered the original question you put to me, which was

Olska....what was/is your involvement with Scientology?

by saying that I was ex-SO, Flag-trained Class XII who had several thousand hours of auditing "in the chair" and, while interning as a C/S after GAT was introduced, I protested the "out tech," was unjustly kicked out and left on the street with nothing but the clothes on my back, and have been seeking justice for myself and for REAL scientology ever since?

Would that give the opinions I express here more weight?

 

[Leon]

I think language is quite capable of expressing the is-ness. There is no mystery until you put it there. Let me express it again in plain language.

Hubbard’s static with special qualities is a speculation. Hubbard gave static a beingness. It became “individuality” to him… the ultimate in self-determinism. A beingness is a manifestation. “Individuality” is a manifestation. Hubbard’s static is a manifestation.

Hubbard made a manifestation to be the source of all other manifestations.

This is very much in line with the traditional premise entertained in the Semitic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Hubbard simply gave it a new garb pretending it to be coming from the East. He had no inkling what East is about.

According to East, the background of manifestation is “absence of manifestation.” That background is UNKNOWABLE because there is nothing manifested to be known.

FACTOR 1 and AXIOM 1 may look good on the surface, but they have curves of "cause" and "individuality" as the ultimate reality thrown into them.

How is this "cause" or "individuality" manifested in the first place.

If they exist they are manifestations.

The same can be said about SPACE, TIME or any other dimension.

.

The Eastern view is just as speculative as the Western view is. There is not one scrap of evidence to support your assertions that the fons et origo is "unknowable" as there is that the "static" is the source of it all.

I maintain that beingness can be fully aware of self even while there is no "creation" to be perceived.

 

[RogerB]

The Eastern view is just as speculative as the Western view is. There is not one scrap of evidence to support your assertions that the fons et origo is "unknowable" as there is that the "static" is the source of it all.

I maintain that beingness can be fully aware of self even while there is no "creation" to be perceived.

This is elegantly stated, Leon. And I concur.

It is as I have found it to be. One can be aware of self while in the state of existence prior to the sourcing of any creations.

Rog

 

[RogerB]

However, I do have a request Vin. Please don't jam-up this thread with a turning it into a discussion of your current project of dissecting LRH Factors etc.

You have your own threads for this that are on-going.

I want to have this thread cleanly available for discourse on corrections and advances in tech that folks can use to undo the damage caused by screwy Scn.

It's for corrections and advances in tech . . . Tech outside of and away from, and often nothing even related to Scn, or "derivatives." (I've had tech prior to and not at all related to Scn for years.)

There are folks benefiting from having this thread available as such. I don't want to see the thread made into something else.

Rog

 

[Vinaire]

The Eastern view is just as speculative as the Western view is. There is not one scrap of evidence to support your assertions that the fons et origo is "unknowable" as there is that the "static" is the source of it all.

I maintain that beingness can be fully aware of self even while there is no "creation" to be perceived.

It is illogical to look for evidence at this level, because there is nothing comparable.

All you can look for is consistency.

The idea of a beingness creating all other beingnesses is inherently inconsistent.

.

 

[Vinaire]

However, I do have a request Vin. Please don't jam-up this thread with a turning it into a discussion of your current project of dissecting LRH Factors etc.

You have your own threads for this that are on-going.

I want to have this thread cleanly available for discourse on corrections and advances in tech that folks can use to undo the damage caused by screwy Scn.

It's for corrections and advances in tech . . . Tech outside of and away from, and often nothing even related to Scn, or "derivatives." (I've had tech prior to and not at all related to Scn for years.)

There are folks benefiting from having this thread available as such. I don't want to see the thread made into something else.

Rog

You have a lot to confront, mate.

Please don't destroy people's cases by making the coolaid sweeter.

Now I have given the warning, and I shall be off your precious thread.

.

 

[Leon]

It is illogical to look for evidence at this level, because there is nothing comparable.

All you can look for is consistency.

The idea of a beingness creating all other beingnesses is inherently inconsistent.

.

Beingness already is - any "beingness" it creates is a becomingness and therefor a substitute.

Your idea of a sort of non-beingness becoming a beingness, an unawareness becomeing aware, an unconcuiiousness spontaneously becoming conscious - there is the logical inconsistency.

But that is enough of this on this thread. I tried to discuss it with you earlier on the other thread but found you to be very stuck on your own rightness.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Good stuff, Rog. It aligns perfectly with the principle of auditing the pc in present time, and not diving into the past to try and find some magical answer. If stuff from the past comes to view and *demands* to be handled, i.e., some other part of one's topic is pressing so hard on one that the aspect being worked on before is no longer even viewable because of the new one, then one goes with the flow and addresses that. But it's all just following the way the mind is stacked up, and not some arbitrary sequence dreamed up by some wannabe-guru.

Paul

Amen!

 

[FoTi]

What if I had answered the original question you put to me, which was



by saying that I was ex-SO, Flag-trained Class XII who had several thousand hours of auditing "in the chair" and, while interning as a C/S after GAT was introduced, I protested the "out tech," was unjustly kicked out and left on the street with nothing but the clothes on my back, and have been seeking justice for myself and for REAL scientology ever since?

Would that give the opinions I express here more weight?

"What ifs" is not the is-ness, is it?

 

[olska]

"What ifs" is not the is-ness, is it?

Why do you keep harping on something that is really none of your business? I answered your question, directly and succinctly, as to what my involvement was/is in scientology when you first asked it -- why was that not good enough?

The "is-ness" of it if you want to use that term is that some of us -- me, for example -- left scientology and its offshoots behind years and years ago and found simpler, easier, more effective methods of dealing with our "issues," whatever those were -- whether that was the usual everyday problems that many -- perhaps MOST -- humans encounter in life, or whether that was a spiritual quest/search for the meaning of life.

Along with that we/I left behind the status, clout, and "altitude" that goes with scientology "training" and scientology "production" statistics such as WDAHs. Now, if someone comes to me with a headache, instead of an auditing session followed by a visit to the examiner followed by a success story followed by the registrar followed by someone having to file all those paper particles in folders and make sure those folders and their contents are stored in the proper place where they can only be viewed by properly trained people, I recommend a couple of Advil or Tylenol and a hot shower. Amazingly effective. I'll even give them the Advil from my own stash, no charge, no "what's the exchange?"

So I will repeat my answer to Leon's question with this modification: NOW, I am not a "trained and experienced auditor."

You're free to speculate all you want on what I may or may not have been in the past. Have a ball. Or not.

 

[FoTi]

Why do you keep harping on something that is really none of your business? I answered your question, directly and succinctly, as to what my involvement was/is in scientology when you first asked it -- why was that not good enough?

The "is-ness" of it if you want to use that term is that some of us -- me, for example -- left scientology and its offshoots behind years and years ago and found simpler, easier, more effective methods of dealing with our "issues," whatever those were -- whether that was the usual everyday problems that many -- perhaps MOST -- humans encounter in life, or whether that was a spiritual quest/search for the meaning of life.

Along with that we/I left behind the status, clout, and "altitude" that goes with scientology "training" and scientology "production" statistics such as WDAHs. Now, if someone comes to me with a headache, instead of an auditing session followed by a visit to the examiner followed by a success story followed by the registrar followed by someone having to file all those paper particles in folders and make sure those folders and their contents are stored in the proper place where they can only be viewed by properly trained people, I recommend a couple of Advil or Tylenol and a hot shower. Amazingly effective. I'll even give them the Advil from my own stash, no charge, no "what's the exchange?"

So I will repeat my answer to Leon's question with this modification: NOW, I am not a "trained and experienced auditor."

You're free to speculate all you want on what I may or may not have been in the past. Have a ball. Or not.

I'm not harping on anything. Just responding to your posts.

 

[Heche Reed]

So what is Kn's definition of "you"?

I happened to come up with a cracker this afternoon (independent of having read the latter thread)-

"You" is a context dependent, context shifter! {TM}

HR

 

[Leon]

The you that you think you are is no more than the aggregate of all of your past efforts to not be you. The real you is beyond all that.

Get it right now. Clay demo it if you need to.

 

[RogerB]

The you that you think you are is no more than the aggregate of all of your past efforts to not be you. The real you is beyond all that.

Get it right now. Clay demo it if you need to.

Yep!

Or, put in other terms, the now you is the aggregate of all the changes made to the real you.

R

 

[RogerB]

Part 3 of Roger's write up on the Games Matrix tech.

In light of recent events on ESMB and in response to various replies to my posts, I had best comment on my position on all this.

I am not an “-ismist” or “-ologist” of any stripe. Nor am I an “anti-ismist” or “anti-ologist” of any stripe. I am simply a searcher for any answers that work.

My search for answer on the issue of performance enhancement and “human betterment” began around 1950, long before I delved in Scn in 1957. Prior to Scn I had studied all the then available usual suspects: eastern thought/religions, philosophy, various “occult” movements, psychology and hypnosis; and one of my favorites, Emile Coué’s work, "Self Mastery Through Conscious Autosuggestion." After my introduction to Scn, I also studied and experienced various native religious beliefs and practices . . . including modern physical and medical sciences.

So I offer up what I have found such that it might be useful to those interested. Those who are not interested can safely ignore it. And having said that, I will say I will not be getting into any arguments about any of this. Folks may have whatever opinions they choose. I will not be engaging in any conflictive argument over what I am offering. You may take it or leave it as you choose.

As a further explanation of what we are/I am dealing with here on this subject, I will put in simple terms the scenario. This in addition to what you have read on my earlier referenced postings above and as further commented on by others in these two links:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=505101&postcount=9174 Abraham Maslow

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=506350&postcount=9225
Hatshepsut on ACWs “created as identities and “GPM” notes.
And my reply http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=506505&postcount=9232

Basically what we now have to deal with, began with us departing a spiritual union of omni-presence by assuming a “position” or, put differently, creating and then being a Beingness or Identity to address the game and other Beings with or as that Beingness/Identity.

In playing the game, this assumed Beingness/Identity reciprocated with others. Because of various misalignments, errors and such, charge built up and much of what was exchanged in the reciprocation stuck. What also stuck to each of the Beings in the game was the imagery and creations projected by each of the players on the other. This included what each Being saw or created the other to be for the playing of the game.

There has been a vast sequence of creating and of assuming the identities of these Beingnesses and the games they facilitated. And in present time, it is this compounded, complex accumulation of conflicted Beingnesses that sit here as the “problem” to resolve.

It is also to be noted the game construct, and the Beingnesses/Identities assumed in the playing of the game, constitute “opposites.” This does not mean, however, that these “opposites” are or were automatically in destructive opposition to each other. Often, and indeed initially, these opposites or apposites were complementary to each other.

It is the aberration of these complementary opposites that we see in present time that is the conflictive opposition that is common to human existence.

Much has been written through the eons about these opposites. Some of that material refers to the positive complementary apposition; and some of it referring to the negative conflictive opponency nature of it.

If you go to these references on Emile Coué, you’ll see how he wrote of this as “Self Conflict.” Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Coué
http://www.psychomaster.com/books/emile/
Self-Mastery Through Conscious Autosuggestion (1922)

Self-conflict

A patient's problems are likely to increase when his willpower and imagination (or mental ideas) are opposing each other, something Coué would refer to as "self-conflict". In the student's case, the will to succeed is clearly incompatible with his thought of being incapable of remembering his answers. As the conflict intensifies, so does the problem: the more the patient tries to sleep, the more he becomes awake. The more a patient tries to stop smoking, the more he smokes. The patient must thus abandon his willpower and instead put more focus on his imaginative power in order to fully succeed with his cure.

Yin and Yang are also positive expressions of this.

This from Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

Yin yang are complementary opposites that interact within a greater whole, as part of a dynamic system. Everything has both yin and yang aspects, but either of these aspects may manifest more strongly in particular objects, and may ebb or flow over time.

Carl Yung spoke of these forces of opposites and how they are often expressed as out of control conditions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiodromia

He coined the word Enantiodromia to explain this situation.

From Wikipedia:

Enantiodromia (Greek: enantios, opposite + dromos, running course) is a principle introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung that the superabundance of any force inevitably produces its opposite. It is equivalent to the principle of equilibrium in the natural world, in that any extreme is opposed by the system in order to restore balance.

I give you the above as part of the explanation of the forces that comprise the construct of the Games Matrices we now find ourselves locked up in.

However, you should realize that these forces are of you and by you along with being of and from those you have related with in the games you have been involved in. And equally important, these forces are now encysted as part of the Beingnesses/Identities you have assumed to play the games you’ve been involved in.

And so those games jammed up into what we now will call the Games Matrices.

All this can now be unraveled and the forces restored to being free spiritual Life-Force under your volition.

This handling will be the subject of my coming posts.

RogerB

 

[dexter gelfand]

That's what I call enlightenment!

Hey Roger, thanks so much for what you share! My taking in your talk at last year's FZ convention and creating a comm line with you continues to pay dividends! Much appreciated. please continue!

Love, Dex

 

[Heche Reed]

In other words

"The "you" that I, Leon, thought I was, was no more than the aggregate of all of my past efforts to not be Leon. The real Leon is beyond all that."

This seems to be more a definition of "self" not "you" per se. Unless you think "you" is in its most essential form, synonymous with (all?) our "self".

I would say "you" can refer to self if one is addressing onesself. But generally refers to OTHERS' selves.

But a definition accurate to both would be "a context dependent, context shifter".

 

[Heche Reed]

"I" "me" and "you" seem interchangeable in RogB and Leon's definitons of "you".

"I" and "me" are not however "context dependent, context shifters".

"Me" is context bound.

"I" is context independent.