Effort to Simplify

[Vinaire]

In my estimation, "OT I" is supposed to teach one about direct perception. The best understanding of direct perception comes from an understanding of the KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE. In this universe, the highest level of perception is LOOKING ACROSS SPACE TO KNOW without using the additives of emotion, effort, thinking, etc. that appear lower on this scale.

So, OT I is supposed to teach one about direct perception, but it adds too much significance. A much better job of teaching direct perception is done by the issues here.

LOOK & NOTICE

EXPERIENCE

ATTENTION

.

 

[Vinaire]

Let's look at how perception gets distorted as one's viewpoint gets more and more condensed.

AXIOM 25: AFFINITY IS A SCALE OF ATTITUDES WHICH FALLS AWAY FROM THE COEXISTENCE OF STATIC, THROUGH THE INTERPOSITIONS OF DISTANCE AND ENERGY, TO CREATE IDENTITY, DOWN TO CLOSE PROXIMITY BUT MYSTERY.

By the practice of isness (beingness) and notisness (refusal to be) individuation progresses from the knowingness of complete identification down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication, through lookingness, emotingness, effortingness, thinkingness, symbolizingness, eatingness, sexingness, and so through to notknowingness (mystery). Until the point of mystery is reached, some communication is possible, but even at mystery an attempt to communicate continues. Here we have, in the case of an individual, a gradual falling away from the belief that one can assume a complete affinity down to the conviction that all is a complete mystery. Any individual is somewhere on this Know to Mystery Scale. The original Chart of Human Evaluation was the emotion section of this scale.

(1) Cohesion of THETA would be a coming together of all the efforts and goals in the process of aligning themselves with the basic postulates of THETA. This is the manifestation of Affinity.

(2) Static being a total potentiality may be considered a state of coexistence; but there is no "existence" in the sense of manifestation.

(3) As space (separation) and energy (activity) is introduced among this “co-existence,” affinity falls away.

(4) With the postulation of TO BE, identity is introduced creating separation from the "rest."

(5) This individuation progresses through various levels as there is also refusal TO BE along with the desire TO BE.

(6) The state of coexistence and complete knowingness degenerates to knowing through lookingness. One looks across a distance to know.

(7) This condenses to knowing through emotions. One looks at one's emotions to know.

(8) This condenses to knowing through effort. One carries the attitude that one has to feel it to know it is there. One starts to have picture to know about things.

(9) This condenses to knowing through thinking. Here one gets into associating pictures one has been keeping to figure things out.

(10) This condenses to knowing through symbols. Thought is packaged as symbols that have meaning. One knows by manipulating these symbols from some reference point.

(11) This condenses into knowing through eating. These symbols become a source of survival. One starts to "store" knowledge within oneself. Memory becomes more important than understanding.

(12) This condenses to knowing through sex. Here one can't survive in present, so one puts survival into the future. One disregards what is there and lives on hope of what could be there.

(13) This condenses to not knowing or mystery. Here one has given up the hope of ever knowing. There is lack of prediction, confusion and then total blackout.

.

 

[Vinaire]

MYSTERY

True mystery is that which must for ever remain a mystery. It is never expected to be resolved. One can never find what lies behind a true mystery.

What is all this? Let's take a direct LOOK at a true mystery and recognize what is there.

What is there is simply a "consideration that nothing can be found out." How this consideration came about may be important. But, what is foremost in importance is the recognition of this consideration that one has concluded that nothing can be found out. From then on the modus operandi is that this consideration must survive (continue).

This consideration may have been put there because one's hope for the future got killed. But what makes a true mystery is the continuance of this consideration... a belief, to put it in other words.

GOD IS A MYSTERY.

The perception of a person at this level is very distorted. He cannot perceive what is there. He would dub-in mystery in everything. He would be looking for the end of the world in 2012 when the Mayan Calendar ends.

.

 

[thefiredragon]

This is very interesting discussion. How do I put my bookmark here?
I'd like to be able to find those threads again later.

 

[Vinaire]

This is very interesting discussion. How do I put my bookmark here?
I'd like to be able to find those threads again later.

(1) Go to the top of this forum at the top this page.

(2) Find the tab marked THREAD TOOLS.

(3) Click on this tab to get a Drop Down Menu.

(4) You may then add this thread to your favorites.

(5) You may then access your Subscribed threads from your User CP (User Control Panel).

Hope this helps.

.

 

[Ted]

In my estimation, "OT I" is supposed to teach one about direct perception. The best understanding of direct perception comes from an understanding of the KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE. In this universe, the highest level of perception is LOOKING ACROSS SPACE TO KNOW without using the additives of emotion, effort, thinking, etc. that appear lower on this scale.

So, OT I is supposed to teach one about direct perception, but it adds too much significance. A much better job of teaching direct perception is done by the issues here.

LOOK & NOTICE

EXPERIENCE

ATTENTION

.

The OT-1 that I did taught about how to perceive other beings as individuals and as groups. It was an objective setup for the subjective auditing of OT-3.

 

[thefiredragon]

(1) Go to the top of this forum at the top this page.

(2) Find the tab marked THREAD TOOLS.

(3) Click on this tab to get a Drop Down Menu.

(4) You may then add this thread to your favorites.

(5) You may then access your Subscribed threads from your User CP (User Control Panel).

Hope this helps.

.

Thanks!

 

[Vinaire]

The OT-1 that I did taught about how to perceive other beings as individuals and as groups. It was an objective setup for the subjective auditing of OT-3.

When one looks at other beings as individuals and as groups, one perceives the physical body or bodies first. One’s concept of body/bodies from past experience helps one recognize the physical objects in front of him as body/bodies.

Perceiving other people’s minds and spirits is something altogether different. It will depend on what concept one has from past experience that will help one recognize other people’s minds and spirits. The knowledge one starts out with is one’s own mind and spirit.

Usually,

(1) One has concepts about things from well-integrated past experiences.
(2) One has scattered pictures from not so well integrated past experiences.
(3) One may have mental phenomena of labeling things automatically as one notices things.
(4) One may have mental phenomena of judging things automatically as one notices things.
(5) One may have other forms of uncontrolled thinking and other mental phenomena.
(6) Then one has a concept of oneself as a spirit.

So, how does one perceive other beings as “minds” or “spirits”? One cannot perceive them without having some concepts from one’s past experience that will help one recognize “minds” or “spirits.”

How did you accomplish what you accomplished on OT 1, Ted?

You don't have to answer this if you don't want to.

.

 

[Ted]

When one looks at other beings as individuals and as groups, one perceives the physical body or bodies first. One’s concept of body/bodies from past experience helps one recognize the physical objects in front of him as body/bodies.

Perceiving other people’s minds and spirits is something altogether different. It will depend on what concept one has from past experience that will help one recognize other people’s minds and spirits. The knowledge one starts out with is one’s own mind and spirit.

Usually,

(1) One has concepts about things from well-integrated past experiences.
(2) One has scattered pictures from not so well integrated past experiences.
(3) One may have mental phenomena of labeling things automatically as one notices things.
(4) One may have mental phenomena of judging things automatically as one notices things.
(5) One may have other forms of uncontrolled thinking and other mental phenomena.
(6) Then one has a concept of oneself as a spirit.

So, how does one perceive other beings as “minds” or “spirits”? One cannot perceive them without having some concepts from one’s past experience that will help one recognize “minds” or “spirits.”

How did you accomplish what you accomplished on OT 1, Ted?

You don't have to answer this if you don't want to.

.

To answer your question, I first have to say that I was and am extremely disappointed with the repeated downgrading of Clear. Aside from the arguments that clear as defined in DMSMH and elsewhere all seemed to be over-marketing and shots in the dark, the actual attainment of the level as it was understood in 1975 was quite rewarding. It is more than the realization that one is mocking "it" up. Geezus, I knew that from the day I started the Comm Course.

There was a time when I know of people attesting Clear for all sorts of reasons, anything that produced an apparent release, including but not limited to taking a big shit. Or, someone who can't run an engram, sees "all black" or nothing so figures they must be clear.

The technical downgrades were/are phenomenal.

How anyone in this category above would benefit from any further spiritual/mental/perceptual exercise in the Hubbard system, such as OT-1, is beyond my imagination.

And while I am at it, I will say the Sunshine R/D is a rip-off even though I know of one person who was totally blown out by doing it with a nice change of perception.

But...

Having attained a stellar state of being and awareness on completing the clearing course, one that only I would or could appreciate after meeting Hubbard's expectations, and, more importantly, my own, I find your points 1 through 5 completely irrelevant.

As for doing the drill, I just followed the instructions and did it without any additional thinking about it.

 

[Vinaire]

To answer your question, I first have to say that I was and am extremely disappointed with the repeated downgrading of Clear. Aside from the arguments that clear as defined in DMSMH and elsewhere all seemed to be over-marketing and shots in the dark, the actual attainment of the level as it was understood in 1975 was quite rewarding. It is more than the realization that one is mocking "it" up. Geezus, I knew that from the day I started the Comm Course.

There was a time when I know of people attesting Clear for all sorts of reasons, anything that produced an apparent release, including but not limited to taking a big shit. Or, someone who can't run an engram, sees "all black" or nothing so figures they must be clear.

The technical downgrades were/are phenomenal.

How anyone in this category above would benefit from any further spiritual/mental/perceptual exercise in the Hubbard system, such as OT-1, is beyond my imagination.

And while I am at it, I will say the Sunshine R/D is a rip-off even though I know of one person who was totally blown out by doing it with a nice change of perception.

But...

Having attained a stellar state of being and awareness on completing the clearing course, one that only I would or could appreciate after meeting Hubbard's expectations, and, more importantly, my own, I find your points 1 through 5 completely irrelevant.

As for doing the drill, I just followed the instructions and did it without any additional thinking about it.

I believe that the reason for downgrading of Clear is because of the lack of a proper definition. If I were to define it, I would put it down as follows:

A PERSON IS CLEAR WHEN ALL OF HIS PAST EXPEREINCE IS WELL-INTEGRATED AND IS AVAILABLE TO HIM IN CONCEPTUAL FORM.

There is no undigested experience remaining as scattered pictures in a Clear's mind. He would perceive and evaluate very rapidly in smooth conceptual terms. This is not necessarily a black and white proposition, but there would be a point where a sudden clarity would manifest itself. It would be a gradually uptrending curve of CLARITY with a big jump in between.

Let's assume we have a real Clear. How would he benefit from OT I? Forget about any PR'd EP.

.

 

[Ted]

I believe that the reason for downgrading of Clear is because of the lack of a proper definition. If I were to define it, I would put it down as follows:

A PERSON IS CLEAR WHEN ALL OF HIS PAST EXPEREINCE IS WELL-INTEGRATED AND IS AVAILABLE TO HIM IN CONCEPTUAL FORM.

There is no undigested experience remaining as scattered pictures in a Clear's mind. He would perceive and evaluate very rapidly in smooth conceptual terms. This is not necessarily a black and white proposition, but there would be a point where a sudden clarity would manifest itself. It would be a gradually uptrending curve of CLARITY with a big jump in between.

Let's assume we have a real Clear. How would he benefit from OT I? Forget about any PR'd EP.

.

If I were your supervisor on a DMSMH course and I asked you to define clear in your own words, I would give you a pass on the above -- no doubt about it.

As for your question, I believe I have already answered that.

 

[Vinaire]

If I were your supervisor on a DMSMH course and I asked you to define clear in your own words, I would give you a pass on the above -- no doubt about it.

As for your question, I believe I have already answered that.

Thanks!

Let's look at Step 1 of OT I:

WALK AROUND AND COUNT BODIES UNTIL YOU HAVE A COGNITION MAKE A REPORT SAYING HOW MANY YOU COUNTED AND YOUR COGNITION.

When I did this per KHTK issues, I got the following realizations:

(a) Wow! There are lots of bodies.

[The following are my speculations/conclusions from observing the motions of the bodies.]

(b) Even though all these bodies are similar, each body has a unique personality just like I have a unique personality.

(c) Each body seems to have its own perspective of the universe, the way I have my own perspective of the universe.

(d) Each body seems to determine its own focus on its environment.

(e) Outwardly they may appear similar, but inwardly they seem to be different. Some speculation here.

(f) There is LIFE in them! Wow! They operate on their own! Each one of them!


For me it was noticing what was there. Afterwards, I tried to make sense out of this step. But there is really nothing to make sense out of. It is simply seeing what is there without any preconceptions.

One would gain to the degree one realizes and gets rid of one's preconceptions. If one has little or no preconceptions, one will get little or nothing out of this step. There is no other magic to it.

Thus, different people will get different results from this step.

.

 

[Ted]

Thanks!

Let's look at Step 1 of OT I:

WALK AROUND AND COUNT BODIES UNTIL YOU HAVE A COGNITION MAKE A REPORT SAYING HOW MANY YOU COUNTED AND YOUR COGNITION.

When I did this per KHTK issues, I got the following realizations:

(a) Wow! There are lots of bodies.

[The following are my speculations/conclusions from observing the motions of the bodies.]

(b) Even though all these bodies are similar, each body has a unique personality just like I have a unique personality.

(c) Each body seems to have its own perspective of the universe, the way I have my own perspective of the universe.

(d) Each body seems to determine its own focus on its environment.

(e) Outwardly they may appear similar, but inwardly they seem to be different. Some speculation here.

(f) There is LIFE in them! Wow! They operate on their own! Each one of them!


For me it was noticing what was there. Afterwards, I tried to make sense out of this step. But there is really nothing to make sense out of. It is simply seeing what is there without any preconceptions.

One would gain to the degree one realizes and gets rid of one's preconceptions. If one has little or no preconceptions, one will get little or nothing out of this step. There is no other magic to it.

Thus, different people will get different results from this step.

.

It's been a long time but as I recall I noticed individuals and groups. Whether I saw an individual or group was entirely related to my focus and/or consideration about the matter.

This relates to the pre-OT's perceptions of BTs and clusters on OT-3.

The other thing I recall about OT-1 is that people tend to gather where there are agreements or stops.

Note that an engram is often a mental image picture of a full-stop situation.

BTs and clusters, according to OT-3 theory, form around impacts, injuries, and mutually-held bad experiences with Incidents 1 & 2 being promoted as of primary importance to auditing the level.

Thus, I find at least two things about OT-1 that give it rhyme and reason: It is an extroversion/havingness process after the CC. It sets the being up to view and audit OT-3.

 

[Vinaire]

It's been a long time but as I recall I noticed individuals and groups. Whether I saw an individual or group was entirely related to my focus and/or consideration about the matter.

This relates to the pre-OT's perceptions of BTs and clusters on OT-3.

The other thing I recall about OT-1 is that people tend to gather where there are agreements or stops.

Note that an engram is often a mental image picture of a full-stop situation.

BTs and clusters, according to OT-3 theory, form around impacts, injuries, and mutually-held bad experiences with Incidents 1 & 2 being promoted as of primary importance to auditing the level.

Thus, I find at least two things about OT-1 that give it rhyme and reason: It is an extroversion/havingness process after the CC. It sets the being up to view and audit OT-3.

This is quite interesting. The question that would come to my mind is, "How is another person differnt from me?" I shall then look at whatever comes up in my mind without thinking or adding anything else.

I, you, he, she, etc. are just separate egos. The question would be,

"What separates these egos?"
"What is an ego in the first place?"

Ok, these egos are attached to different bodies. That is fine. I can see that clearly.

These egos are attached to these bodies through mental bonds. Here we have systems at a much finer level than the bodies. But these are still systems. I can appreciate that.

So, the ego reduces to the spirit that is manipulating these systems via other systems. How many layers of systems are there seems to be irrelevant. There are systems, and then there is this spirit manipuating these systems.

What is this spirit then?

Now, this is where various philosophies depart. I am different from that other person because "me" that is manipulating all my systems is diffenrent from this other spirit that is manipulating all its systems.

"What is this spirit?"
"What separates one spirit from another?"

We conceive of a spirit when we see a body being motivated in an independent manner. So, we may regard a spirit as a unit of independent computation.

So, it is independence that keeps two spirits apart.

Where do these independences come from? Do they have to come from anywhere? As far as we can see, they simply appear from nowhere.

If the appear then they also disappear... from and into nothing.

The background is NOTHING THAT IS FULL OF POTENTIAL.

[TO BE CONTINUED...]

.

 

[Ted]

This is quite interesting. The question that would come to my mind is, "How is another person differnt from me?" I shall then look at whatever comes up in my mind without thinking or adding anything else.

I, you, he, she, etc. are just separate egos. The question would be,

"What separates these egos?"
"What is an ego in the first place?"


[...]

.

Why concentrate on ego? That's just mind games.

How is another person different from me? Better yet, how is another spirit different from me?

Or just postulate and perceive. The question is an unnecessary additive used to get more dense, less perceptive beings to look.

See Axioms 2 and 3.

 

[Vinaire]

Why concentrate on ego? That's just mind games.

How is another person different from me? Better yet, how is another spirit different from me?

Or just postulate and perceive. The question is an unnecessary additive used to get more dense, less perceptive beings to look.

See Axioms 2 and 3.

Here are Axioms 2 and 3 with my comments:

AXIOM 2: THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS.

(1) A consideration is a continuing postulate.

(2) A postulate is a directed desire (or its harmonic) expressed as an idea or thought.

(3) An opinion is a thought that may or may not be based on other thoughts.

(4) The Axioms are agreed-upon considerations. They are the central considerations which have been agreed upon. They are self-evident agreements.

(5) An agreement is a specialized consideration that is shared in common. It is a mutual knowingness, a mutual postulatingness towards certain end products.

(6) A knowingness is being certain about something.

(7) These postulates, consideration, opinions, agreements, knowingness, etc. come about from nowhere because an identity itself is a result of postulates, consideration, opinions, agreements, knowingness, etc.

AXIOM 3: SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.

(1) Space, energy, objects, form and time result from considerations.

(2) These considerations may be by themselves, or they could be a result of agreements.

(3) Perception also comes about because of consideration.

(4)The following quote is from The Phoenix Lectures:

“Things are because you consider that they are and therefore something that is, is considered is. If you don't consider that it is, it of course can be considered to be something else. But if you recognize that it is a consideration you only have to recognize that it is. And if you recognize that something is, then you have recognized merely that it is a consideration. As soon as you have recognized that something is, IS, you have reduced it to a consideration, and that's that.”

.

 

[Vinaire]

Why concentrate on ego? That's just mind games.

How is another person different from me? Better yet, how is another spirit different from me?

Or just postulate and perceive. The question is an unnecessary additive used to get more dense, less perceptive beings to look.

...

Yes...

Postulating is a consideration and so is perceiving.

Spirits are considerations and so are the differences between them.

Am I getting it, or am I getting it?

Who am I anyway?

.

 

[Ted]

Yes...

Postulating is a consideration and so is perceiving.

Spirits are considerations and so are the differences between them.

Am I getting it, or am I getting it?

Who am I anyway?

.

The question is inappropriate as worded. Although I do get the humor of it in your context above.

Who am I in relation to (context, situation, circumstance, other person, etc.)? Those questions are answerable.

 

[Vinaire]

The question is inappropriate as worded. Although I do get the humor of it in your context above.

Who am I in relation to (context, situation, circumstance, other person, etc.)? Those questions are answerable.

"I" is a consideration. An important consideration though.

.

 

[Vinaire]

It's been a long time but as I recall I noticed individuals and groups. Whether I saw an individual or group was entirely related to my focus and/or consideration about the matter.

This relates to the pre-OT's perceptions of BTs and clusters on OT-3.

The other thing I recall about OT-1 is that people tend to gather where there are agreements or stops.

Note that an engram is often a mental image picture of a full-stop situation.

BTs and clusters, according to OT-3 theory, form around impacts, injuries, and mutually-held bad experiences with Incidents 1 & 2 being promoted as of primary importance to auditing the level.

Thus, I find at least two things about OT-1 that give it rhyme and reason: It is an extroversion/havingness process after the CC. It sets the being up to view and audit OT-3.

I now think of an ENGRAM as an intense randomity which could not be fully viewed, sorted, and integrated into one's experience when it happened.

Normally, anything a person notices in present time is interpreted through the concepts acquired from past experience. That is how a person recognizes a table as a table.

But when one confronts something for which one has no readily available concepts, then, to interpret it, one brings up whatever similar experience one has available. Any experience not yet viewed and converted into conceptual form may be referred to as "undigested experience." Engram is such an undigested experience.

When one looks through an undigested experience at something in present time, one's perception is distorted. When that undigested experience is an engram, one's perception is really distorted. Since the mind computes on data obtained from perception, the conclusions are distorted as well, and so are the impulses sent out to motor controls.

This may be called "restimulation." But the engram has come up to help interpret the present, and this may be a good opportunity to sort it out and integrate it back into conceptual form. This may be possible if the KHTK principles from the following documents are followed.

LOOK & NOTICE
EXPERIENCE
ATTENTION

What I am saying is that it is possible to flatten engrams in real time when restimulation occurs.

I think that BTs and clusters are simply the nomenclature to classify the intense randomity captured in an undigested experience, or engram, waiting to be fully viewed, sorted, and integrated into one's experience in conceptual form.

.